Does F1 require FIA control to live?

[Conceptual]

According to Moseley's letter in the news section, he clearly states that it is necessary for the long term survival of F1 for the FIA to gain more, if not absolute, control over Formula 1.

Are political controls of an outside party really necessary? Is it possible for a new Concorde to wrest control from the FIA and put it in the hands of the team Principals? Is it necessary to direct a sport that wants to lead the way in technology into something that is purely a marketing evolution?

What would happen if Formula 1 teams demanded that a new Concorde be written, placing all power of the regulations to the team Principals? What would happen if the FIA gained absolute control over Formula 1?

Anyone care to speculate?

Chris

[DaveKillens]

Naturally, this would be Max's position because if you believe it, it strengthens his position. Oh woe to us all if we fall into chaos and confusion if Max wasn't around to guide the affairs of F1.
And it's partially true because (only on my personal opinion) any racing series requires a very strong hand to control and guide it. Almost a dictatorship. But that doesn't mean Max is the correct dictator for the job. His vision may not now be correct, and another leader may take F1 into a different direction. And to be honest, a better future.
Max's presence is powerful, witness the many changes he has instituted. Different qualifying formats (how many versions did we go through in a few short years before we settled on the present format?), V-8 engines with very restrictive parameters. Two races, homolgation, specific dimensions. Tires.. from slicks to grooved to return to slicks. And so on and so on. Many changes, and it can easily be argued if any changes are for the better.
But Max is a crippled horse, surrounded by controversy about his personal affairs. Just like a horse with a broken leg, don't expect it to be able to haul much, or very far.
It's time for change, and this is as good a time as any. Sure there may be mistakes, but as long as the manufacturers do not gain absolute control, it's my opinion things will be OK.

[Conceptual]

Naturally, this would be Max's position because if you believe it, it strengthens his position. Oh woe to us all if we fall into chaos and confusion if Max wasn't around to guide the affairs of F1.
And it's partially true because (only on my personal opinion) any racing series requires a very strong hand to control and guide it. Almost a dictatorship. But that doesn't mean Max is the correct dictator for the job. His vision may not now be correct, and another leader may take F1 into a different direction. And to be honest, a better future.
Max's presence is powerful, witness the many changes he has instituted. Different qualifying formats (how many versions did we go through in a few short years before we settled on the present format?), V-8 engines with very restrictive parameters. Two races, homolgation, specific dimensions. Tires.. from slicks to grooved to return to slicks. And so on and so on. Many changes, and it can easily be argued if any changes are for the better.
But Max is a crippled horse, surrounded by controversy about his personal affairs. Just like a horse with a broken leg, don't expect it to be able to haul much, or very far.
It's time for change, and this is as good a time as any. Sure there may be mistakes, but as long as the manufacturers do not gain absolute control, it's my opinion things will be OK.

By manufacturers you mean Honda, BMW, and Toyota, or do you mean Constructors meaning Honda, Williams, FIF1?

I think the constructors setting their technical parameters in a Concorde Agreement is much more beneficial to the sport than a Political body of elected, thus corrupt, Lawyers and Marketeers finding new ways to make a profit off of it.

The Constructors spend the money to participate, why shouldnt they get to set the direction that their investment dollars is spent? Is it really better to allow the FIA and its special interests to govern where the pinnacle of motorsport applies their time, money and talent?

I don't think that a dictatorship is the way. I think an agreement of the teams on what is safe, road relevant, and justifiable to their board of directors is a much more beneficial way to control the spectacle that is Formula 1.

Chris

[zac510]

Conceptual,

The FIA does more than just set the technical regulations. They do all the sporting regulations, too. Can you imagine a team contesting a black flag or something where another team would stand to lose a victory or more? It needs an impartial mediator and that's true in non-sporting politics too.

They can hardly agree on rules within the TWG now. They can hardly be capable of running a championship themselves. Even then I think they'd need an independent chair to run it.. Which might aswell be the FIA.

What are the FIA's 'special interests' that you allude to?

[WhiteBlue]

The championship should be run by the FIA. Anything else is not going to work. Neither the CRH nor the constructors can run the series fair and to the advantage of the many stakeholders. F1 suffered by the veto of the Concord participants. It needs to listen to the teams, the fans, the CRH and the auto manufacturers. ultimately it needs to make a majority based decision that cannot be vetoed by a single party. of course Max Mosley himself isn't necessarily needed, but it would be tragic if the control which the FIA just got back after 16 years of chaos would be lost due to the stich up and his sex escapades.

[Conceptual]

The championship should be run by the FIA. Anything else is not going to work. Neither the CRH nor the constructors can run the series fair and to the advantage of the many stakeholders. F1 suffered by the veto of the Concord participants. It needs to listen to the teams, the fans, the CRH and the auto manufacturers. ultimately it needs to make a majority based decision that cannot be vetoed by a single party. Of course Max Mosley himself isn't necessarily needed, but it would be tragic if the control which the FIA just got back after 16 years of chaos would be lost due to the stich up and his sex escapades.

I think that if they listen to the fans, it will go the way of anything that is run by emotion instead of true understanding, and that is extinct. The fans will ALWAYS watch it BECAUSE it is F1. Look at how many complaints you see about the current state of things, IE: Myself and dozens more on this forum, but we still are interested enough to watch every race, as well as regularly visit an internet news/opinion site to talk about it.

Make the independant marshalls enforce the agreed upon rules. Black flags will not happen any more than they do now, and the teams cannot argue with a rule that they agreed to. If they simply said any constructor that agrees to participate for 10 years gets a decisive seat on the Governing Body, you would ensure long-term participation.

Maybe I'm still dreaming, eh?

Chris

[WhiteBlue]

.. Make the independant marshalls enforce the agreed upon rules...

marshalls are already under independant FIA rule

.. If they simply said any constructor that agrees to participate for 10 years gets a decisive seat on the Governing Body, you would ensure long-term participation...

that isn't a fair solution to all competitors

edit: here I wrote something silly

[Conceptual]

.. Make the independant marshalls enforce the agreed upon rules...

1. marshalls are already under independant FIA rule

.. If they simply said any constructor that agrees to participate for 10 years gets a decisive seat on the Governing Body, you would ensure long-term participation...

2. that isn't a fair solution to all competitors

..
Maybe I'm still dreaming, eh? Chris

3. agreed

1. Then they could easily be employed by the F1 Constructors in the already established fashion.

2. Exactly how do you arrive at that? Some objective information instead of subjective rhetoric would be appreciated.

3. See answer #2.

Chris

[WhiteBlue]

The individual constructors will always be dominated by the CRH. If you doubt that just look at how Bernie has manipulated them in the last 18 years. any powers to the constructors will effectively go strait to the CRH.

seniority isn't a justification for priviledges of some competitors over others. that isn't fair or sporting.

[DaveKillens]

By manufacturers you mean Honda, BMW, and Toyota, or do you mean Constructors meaning Honda, Williams, FIF1?

Conceptual, I was referring to the auto manufacturers, such as Mercedes, BMW, etc.

Geez, it's sure nice to disagree respectfully and politely. Thanks to all.

[Rob W]

It's time for change, and this is as good a time as any. Sure there may be mistakes, but as long as the manufacturers do not gain absolute control, it's my opinion things will be OK.

The most astute comment I've seen written in this forum. =D>

R

[WhiteBlue]

It's time for change, and this is as good a time as any. Sure there may be mistakes, but as long as the manufacturers do not gain absolute control, it's my opinion things will be OK.

The most astute comment I've seen written in this forum. =D>

R

It falls slightly short of answering the question of this topic. The issue has shifted from the threat of manufacturers taking over F1 from the FIA to the CRH taking over F1 from the FIA in the last years.

Both things would be bad for the sport. An owner who is exclusively fixed on maximising his profit from an entertainment show business (something like wrestling) isn't likely to run it apropriately in a sporting sense.

The FIA is a pretty good governing body for the sport and certainly better than their name. You cannot satisfy all stake holders all the time and that leads to much public criticism. at the bottom line the organization has done a super job in open wheel racing. that has a lot to do with the balance of exlpoiting marketing opportunities and maintaining credibility as a governing body.

that balance has worked more or less for the time of the concord agreement but now the cooperation between the marketing and the sporting side has openly broken down with the Ecclestone/Mosley conflict. This conflict will be resolved somehow.

I wouldn't like to see the FIA out of the sport. It would be better if both conflict figures would be replaced by new leaders who can make a fresh start and settle the issues. The FIA should certainly remain the body to regulate the sport.

[Conceptual]

If all you are looking for is an impartial regulator, then the FIA isnt it.

I agree that the marketing and the sporting sides are at odds, but that is purely a product of greed, not natural consequence.

I think the FIA can still govern, but Mosely needs to be replaced with someone who understands RACING. Not just a lawyer that operates things within the legal limits, regardless of ulterior motive.

Chris

[WhiteBlue]

It is obvious that the FIA needs a replacement for Mosley. I think everybody agrees to that even Mosley. The problem is finding one. Mosley wasn't quite as bad as some people make him. He had his faults. But a whole lot of the bad decisions were taken because the concord agreement never provided a sensible consultation process that led to sensible decisions. A lot of the system immannent faults are blamed on th the FIA that most of the time wasn't in power of the process.

[Scotracer]

All I hope for is as soon as they find a replacement for Max, they can sort out the regulations and bring back the engineering allure of the sport; where are the radical concepts to the challenges, the ever increasing engine power and revs, the technology war. On the horizon all we have is even more strictly mandated aerodynamics, very odd looking cars, frozen engines AGAIN and the only technological change to the regulations is something that the fan can't see or hear

Bah, we 2003 aero regulations back and the return of the V10s or at least a removal of the rev limit on the V8s.