Drivers on strike on superlicence fees?

[WhiteBlue]

The idea of a driver strike is idiotic in the first place. Everybody familliar with F1 history knows that some drivers will allways race even if the chance to die is 1/10. How is the issue of a bit of petty cash going to stop them racing?

[Scuderia_Russ]

I know motorsport is expensive but that's quite a hike.

[Ciro Pabón]

I don't think it's about the "petty cash" (what? 200.000 thousand devaluated) but about the arbitrariety. Why not a million? Or two? Or what?

The licensing fees, in my humble opinion, should pay the cost of the license.

That's not the way, taxing the rich because they're rich. That's an offense and detrimental to the main objective of FIA, which is to spread the sport, not to narrow it.

You can repeat they're filthy rich, but what from that? What about my humble 2nd class national license? How much for it? Whatever they want to charge or whatever it costs to produce? It's the principle, my friends. "Free taxing" is dictatorship.

I'm sure you can get more money from the GPDA by other rational means, like Juan Montoya "Formula Sonrisas" (Smiles Formula) or Clay's Regazzoni's "Onlus" (for handicapped racing).

In my enraged opinion, it's another S/M session being played in Max's twisted mind...

[WhiteBlue]

I see that nobody even adresses the points that have been made for a license increase.

The money raised is much less than what is continued to be spend to improve their safety (FIA motorsport Institute). In fact a great deal of money has been spend in the past to protect their life. The vast majority of Sid Watkins organization works just for the few F1 drivers safety and has kept them all alive and mostly unhurt for more than 14 years since the terrible time when Roland Ratzenberger and Ayrton Senna became the last of the dead heroes giving their life for a sport steeped in tragedy.

Since then driver income has increased proportional to the safety of the sport. I do not see why they should not contribute and in actual fact acknoledge the work that has benefitted them greatly.

One can discuss wheather the way the fees have been raised and the steepness of the raise are appropriate. I believe that the FIA and Mosley will take up that issue with the GPDA. One should not forget that the GPDA was re founded in the wake of the 1994 tragedy and made many demands regarding safety improvements.

Lately it apprears that the GPDA isn't representing the majority of top drivers any more and consequently their own contribution towards safety improvements has deteriorated. I wonder if the GPDA has had any meaningfull budget and safety projects to pursue in the last two years. the last big thing I remember was DC's crash over Wurz and the following work in FIA groups which led to raised cockpit sides.

In other fora people have compared the professional fees of lawyers which are much lower. the dangers are also much lower and the bar association do not need to carry out very expensive research to protect their members against the dangers of their profession.

So my question is why the tax payer and the race visitors should indefinetely pay by other income sources of the FIA for improving F1 driver protection if they are perfectly capable of making an appropriate contribution themselves. I look forward to hearing a sensible argument against that thought.