Mohammed Ben Sulayem: FIA President under investigation for alleged attempt to interfere over F1 race

[Waz]

Saudi Arabia: I remember pundits not sympathetic to Alonso at the time saying it was a silly penalty, Sulayem was establishing a healthy precedent.

The penalty wasn't silly, unless they truly weren't touching the car. Once you establish a hard limit in the regulations, you've got to adhere to it, or the teams will exploit that. Touching the car might have saved them a couple of hundreths of a second, but it's still an advantage. Just like track limits - 1cm out of limits is a negligible advantage, but if you make it into a soft limit ("eee... it was barely over, we can let it go"), the teams will push those boundaries further each time, expecting to get away with it. And then, the regulation becomes useless.

<Mod edit, AD21 leftovers removed>

The penalty was deemed silly at the time because the wording in the regulations is ambiguous, and that formed the basis of Aston Martin's appeal. It was never just over turned out of the blue.

Track limits are about as soft as they get in F1, unlike MotoGP. Firstly, it's only enforced on selected corners, and then if ANY part of just ONE tire appears to be touching or POTENTIALLY touching the line, the car is judged within limits.

In both cases, with the Alonso penalty, and the Las Vegas track, he was actually correct, although maybe acted in a manner outside of his official capacity.

All along, his actions have been more on the "side" of the fans, attempting to take back more control of the sport from the teams and commercial rights holder, which does make me wonder if it's his nationality acting against him.

If he were British, for example, and made all the same decisions, would he receive the same outcry?

[Espresso]

..
In both cases, with the Alonso penalty, and the Las Vegas track, he was actually correct, although maybe acted in a manner outside of his official capacity.

All along, his actions have been more on the "side" of the fans, attempting to take back more control of the sport from the teams and commercial rights holder, which does make me wonder if it's his nationality acting against him.

If he were British, for example, and made all the same decisions, would he receive the same outcry?

Wise words need to be quoted!

[FW17]

Saudi Arabia: I remember pundits not sympathetic to Alonso at the time saying it was a silly penalty, Sulayem was establishing a healthy precedent.

The penalty wasn't silly, unless they truly weren't touching the car. Once you establish a hard limit in the regulations, you've got to adhere to it, or the teams will exploit that. Touching the car might have saved them a couple of hundreths of a second, but it's still an advantage. Just like track limits - 1cm out of limits is a negligible advantage, but if you make it into a soft limit ("eee... it was barely over, we can let it go"), the teams will push those boundaries further each time, expecting to get away with it. And then, the regulation becomes useless.

<Mod edit, AD21 leftovers removed>

The penalty was deemed silly at the time because the wording in the regulations is ambiguous, and that formed the basis of Aston Martin's appeal. It was never just over turned out of the blue.

Track limits are about as soft as they get in F1, unlike MotoGP. Firstly, it's only enforced on selected corners, and then if ANY part of just ONE tire appears to be touching or POTENTIALLY touching the line, the car is judged within limits.

In both cases, with the Alonso penalty, and the Las Vegas track, he was actually correct, although maybe acted in a manner outside of his official capacity.

All along, his actions have been more on the "side" of the fans, attempting to take back more control of the sport from the teams and commercial rights holder, which does make me wonder if it's his nationality acting against him.

If he were British, for example, and made all the same decisions, would he receive the same outcry?

And paid F1 media

[PlatinumZealot]

Unfounded. No evidence.