Why the FIA bows to Ferrari

[Tom]

'emissary Ted. OK, I had to look it up, but i guessed from the context.

I must admit as to never hearing of Yip, but RAM was always amusing, lived up to its name anyway.
Besides, no one listens to me, as far as they're concerned if its not football it's boring. Shame Tyrell and Brabham aren't still going, and of course Lotus.

I was amazed the other day when my Physics teacher mentioned a first year in her class was related to Alan McNish, and I was the only one who'd heard of him! The second most successful man out of Dumfries, a Le Mans winner and F1 driver!!!

[Ciro Pabón]

I think Ted68 is talking about Theodore Racing, by Teddy Yip. He funded the Ensign Team. His team helped Divina Galica to be the first woman to win an F1 race (albeit, at a British event).

Well, I still do not know if the news have something related with Max being gay. But I am more than enlightened about the danger of socialism. I might throw my PSOE card one of these days, once we have social security for everybody. Meanwhile, I guess the world will be ruled by corporations. I only hope gcdugas likes the "Enron" way when it is achieved... it's pure fun and entertainement for the "small" guy, while it lasts.

I think this is moore than enough "dirty water" on Mr. Max Mosley, because he is a different man from his father. Anyway, I feel compelled to explain that Oswald Mosley was not a socialist. He was a nacionalsocialist, a very different proposition. The people that opposed him were the socialists. There you have an example that you can actually check in London (at least, it was there when I went to the place when I was 18 ):



"He said he heard about a couple living in the USA
He said they traded in their baby for a Chevrolet
Let's talk about the future, now we've put the past away"

Elvis Costello - Less than zero

[DaveKillens]

Funny how the US interstates are a monument to the spirit of socialism. But I digress.
I really don't care if Max is gay, a trekkie, or has more than three cats. In this day and age, it isn't such a social stigma as in days of yore. (Throw another faggot in the fire, boys, they used to burn them.) Maybe in the land of NA$CAR would it be relevant where the fans are sensitive to everything.
And although I can't speak for Max, I doubt very much if he can be bullied, pressured, threatened, or forced in anyway by anyone. He's just a lunatic out of touch of reality these days, that's reason enough to want him to retire from the universe.

[wazojugs]

from the mouth of jackie stewart

"On top of that, it's also an extremely unfortunate thing to have happened to F1, especially as even before all this occurred there was already a perception that the FIA was favouring Ferrari, and had been favouring them for some time."

"I'm not saying that perception is correct; no, I'm just saying it's a perception. But perceptions are important."

"People have suspected it for a long time - and indeed, for example, there are still some question marks over why so many Ferrari or Ferrari-associated people have seats on the FIA World Motor Sport Council."

"So I think the FIA have to be very careful."

[Spencifer_Murphy]

Just to pour fuel on the fire:

During ITV's F1 coverage of the chinese GP I heard James Allen comment that apparently during qualifying a driver on an outlap who could be hindering a driver on a fast lap (Alonso and Massa respectively at Monza) should be shown the blue flag by the stewards.

Why was this not done? Did the stewards (like pretty much every1 else in the F1 establishment, fans and workers alike) think that a car which was never less than 93metres in front of the Ferrari (fact from FIA themselves) could not possibly hinder another?

If then Ferrari did show evidence to the contravy (as we are told) why was it accepted as proof, when the FIA steward's own interpretation of the regulations before being shown some data was the same as everybody else's. (ANYBODY who watched quali and though "oh yes Alonso held up Massa, is lying, nobody could have possibly thought it, up untill Ferrari launched their complaint of course then there was data to prove it.)

My point is this:

1. Blue flags should have been shown, and they weren't - Stewards / Marshalls / Officials not doing their job.
2. Nobody (apart from Ferrari) though Alonso had impeeded Massa, due to a rational interpretation of the rules.
3. Why when Ferrari show data that proves Massa was indirectly impeeded does the Stewards interpretation of the rules change?

The whole reason we have one standard stweard now (in Tony Scott Andrews) is that we try to eliminate these sorts of irregularities between races, insted we end up with irregularities within a race weekend!

Whether you believe the penalty was right or wrong, or whether Massa was or was not held up is NOT what I'm debating here (we've spent far too long on that.) My point here is to highlight some irregularities that I've just thought of after hearing new comments from an F1 insider today on ITV's F1 coverage. I do not care what the regulations are (within reason, 1litre desiel F1 cars are a no-no! lol) but I really don't like it when the rules are not correctly or consistently enforced.

Like in football when the referree makes a poor desicion. however in F1 the stewards have replay's which should help eliminate this problem, why then is it still here?

[DaveKillens]

I agree Spencifer, the regulations have to be applied equally and with consistency. In most major professional sports they undergo regular changes and interprations of the rules. If in the NHL one year grabbing an opponent's stick is allowed, and the next it's a penalty, the fans can live with it. But only as long as the rule is applied to everyone, and with consistency.
These days in Formula One, no matter what the team or driver, the application and interpretation of the rules seems to change day by day, minute by minute.
For example, during China qualifying Barrichello came out of the pits and seriously impeded De LaRosa. Now, I happen to think well of Reubens, and although there was an official explanation, this kind of scenario is 100% contrary to what happened at Monza.
This kind of behavior by the people supposed to apply the rules definitely throws the sport into disrepute. I can understand it happening in pro wrestling, where reality is thrown out the door. But not in Formula One, criminey.

[pRo]

During ITV's F1 coverage of the chinese GP I heard James Allen comment that apparently during qualifying a driver on an outlap who could be hindering a driver on a fast lap (Alonso and Massa respectively at Monza) should be shown the blue flag by the stewards.

Yeah, McLaren complained that Barrichello had impeded de la Rosa and the result was that they agreed he had done so, but no punishment was given, because he wasn't given the blue.

Why was this not done? Did the stewards (like pretty much every1 else in the F1 establishment, fans and workers alike) think that a car which was never less than 93metres in front of the Ferrari (fact from FIA themselves) could not possibly hinder another?

If then Ferrari did show evidence to the contravy (as we are told) why was it accepted as proof, when the FIA steward's own interpretation of the regulations before being shown some data was the same as everybody else's. (ANYBODY who watched quali and though "oh yes Alonso held up Massa, is lying, nobody could have possibly thought it, up untill Ferrari launched their complaint of course then there was data to prove it.)

You must've been reading the normal rulebook again, check the Ferrari version too.

[DaveKillens]

When I watched the Alonso/Massa incident at Monza, it never crossed my mind there was anything foul going on. In hindsight it's obvious that on exiting Parabolica, Massa would not have the clean air for an optimum exit. But I still consider nothing amiss. How often would you see the corner workers fly the blue flag for a car 200 meters in front of the race leader, in a lapping scenario?