Formula 1 and FIA organizational hierarchy?
06-23-2005, 01:01 PM
#16
Geo... thanks for the great detail and sharing your knowledge. My point is simply that just because the FIA "recognizes" NASCAR and that the two organizations may give each other some professional courtesy on issues that don't mean anyting, or that they may "default" to FIA rules on specific issues as a matter of convenience.... that doesn't mean the FIA has one whit to say about the actual rules. NASCAR runs NASCAR and the ACF runs LeMans.
Any sanctioning body has power only because the participants voluntarily agree to play by their rules. its the "if you want to play in my sandbox, you play by my rules..." If the promoter (NASCAR, ACF, etc) has a big enough sandbox then they can make the rules... and they do.
In the old old days, individual promoters offered a "Grand Prix" (literally Big Prize) and people showed up with cars to win it... it was very much "run what you brung" As motor racing became more popular, it was in everybody's interest... Manufacturers, Drivers, and Spectators, to level the playing field... the FIA emerged as an independant 3rd party to do that.
Once it becase accepted practice that a real "Grand Prix" should be run under the FIA formula, you begin to have the evolution of modern F1 racing. It is very much like boxing using Marques of Qeensbury rules, or running a trackmeet under "Olympic" rules, rather than NCAA rules or AAU rules.
Any series that wants to be recognized Internationally is generally best served by defaulting to FIA rules as these are the most widely accepted in all countries. BUt bottom line the FIA only has clout becasue all parties agree to voluntarily play by their rules.
Any sanctioning body has power only because the participants voluntarily agree to play by their rules. its the "if you want to play in my sandbox, you play by my rules..." If the promoter (NASCAR, ACF, etc) has a big enough sandbox then they can make the rules... and they do.
In the old old days, individual promoters offered a "Grand Prix" (literally Big Prize) and people showed up with cars to win it... it was very much "run what you brung" As motor racing became more popular, it was in everybody's interest... Manufacturers, Drivers, and Spectators, to level the playing field... the FIA emerged as an independant 3rd party to do that.
Once it becase accepted practice that a real "Grand Prix" should be run under the FIA formula, you begin to have the evolution of modern F1 racing. It is very much like boxing using Marques of Qeensbury rules, or running a trackmeet under "Olympic" rules, rather than NCAA rules or AAU rules.
Any series that wants to be recognized Internationally is generally best served by defaulting to FIA rules as these are the most widely accepted in all countries. BUt bottom line the FIA only has clout becasue all parties agree to voluntarily play by their rules.
06-23-2005, 01:43 PM
#18
Drifting
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Munich
Posts: 2,722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no idea who the ACF is, but the organisation which runs Le Mans and associated race series, and licences the name to Don Panoz' organisation / IMSA is ACO (l'Automobile Club de l'Ouest), which roughly translates into English as The Automobile Club of The West. ACO and FIA are 'harmonising' their regulations so there are fewer differences between the Le Mans regulations and the FIA-GT regulations.
R+C
R+C
06-23-2005, 02:38 PM
#19
Nord... you are absolutely right ACO...DOH! I think the ACF is the Auto Club of France who used to organize the Franch GP or something.... the brain is the second organ to go....As to "Harmonizing" that is much different from being dictated to.
As far as Mosley's defense, his job is to make a decision and he made a decision. Whether you agree or not, at least he did his job. Then he went on to defend it with some of the most intellectually insulting rationale....
First, we are talking about a CHICANE here... not converting a section of the track to dirt... there are multiple (some would argue too many) chicanes at every GP track. Putting in a chicane to slow cars down is an accepted practice and done all the time
He says it would be dangerous. How does slowing the cars down make the track more dangerous? He talks about not having time to analize all the possible deflections paths and crash angles on a turn that R Shuey totaled two cars on already... looks like they can't do that right anyway.
He says it would radically alter the nature of the course and the carefully set up cars, yet last week they were happily pouring quick-dry cement all over the racing line dramatically changing the traction in the turns and he didn;t seem to worry about that. The drivers apear to have adaped quite competently.
He implies that the drivers would be unable to cope with the change.... so I guess F1 drivers are too inept to drive a racecar through a chicane? Come on!
He says it is like making other competitors at a track meet take off their shoes because somebody forgot theirs... A)... no it isn't... the other competitiors do not have to change their cars at all, and Michelin didn;t forget to bring thier tires B) That is so stupid, I can;t believe he said it on the record.
He says it's like taking slalom skis to a downhill race... no it's not.
He suggested, apparently quite seriously, that they simply race down the pit lane. !!!!!! Puleese
As far as Mosley's defense, his job is to make a decision and he made a decision. Whether you agree or not, at least he did his job. Then he went on to defend it with some of the most intellectually insulting rationale....
First, we are talking about a CHICANE here... not converting a section of the track to dirt... there are multiple (some would argue too many) chicanes at every GP track. Putting in a chicane to slow cars down is an accepted practice and done all the time
He says it would be dangerous. How does slowing the cars down make the track more dangerous? He talks about not having time to analize all the possible deflections paths and crash angles on a turn that R Shuey totaled two cars on already... looks like they can't do that right anyway.
He says it would radically alter the nature of the course and the carefully set up cars, yet last week they were happily pouring quick-dry cement all over the racing line dramatically changing the traction in the turns and he didn;t seem to worry about that. The drivers apear to have adaped quite competently.
He implies that the drivers would be unable to cope with the change.... so I guess F1 drivers are too inept to drive a racecar through a chicane? Come on!
He says it is like making other competitors at a track meet take off their shoes because somebody forgot theirs... A)... no it isn't... the other competitiors do not have to change their cars at all, and Michelin didn;t forget to bring thier tires B) That is so stupid, I can;t believe he said it on the record.
He says it's like taking slalom skis to a downhill race... no it's not.
He suggested, apparently quite seriously, that they simply race down the pit lane. !!!!!! Puleese
06-23-2005, 02:49 PM
#20
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
And just in case you didn't know what kind of class act Bernie is: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/SPORT/06....ap/index.html
06-23-2005, 03:47 PM
#22
Race Director
Originally Posted by JCP911S
First, we are talking about a CHICANE here... not converting a section of the track to dirt... there are multiple (some would argue too many) chicanes at every GP track. Putting in a chicane to slow cars down is an accepted practice and done all the time
He says it would be dangerous. How does slowing the cars down make the track more dangerous? He talks about not having time to analize all the possible deflections paths and crash angles on a turn that R Shuey totaled two cars on already... looks like they can't do that right anyway.
He says it would radically alter the nature of the course and the carefully set up cars, yet last week they were happily pouring quick-dry cement all over the racing line dramatically changing the traction in the turns and he didn;t seem to worry about that. The drivers apear to have adaped quite competently.
He implies that the drivers would be unable to cope with the change.... so I guess F1 drivers are too inept to drive a racecar through a chicane? Come on!
He says it would be dangerous. How does slowing the cars down make the track more dangerous? He talks about not having time to analize all the possible deflections paths and crash angles on a turn that R Shuey totaled two cars on already... looks like they can't do that right anyway.
He says it would radically alter the nature of the course and the carefully set up cars, yet last week they were happily pouring quick-dry cement all over the racing line dramatically changing the traction in the turns and he didn;t seem to worry about that. The drivers apear to have adaped quite competently.
He implies that the drivers would be unable to cope with the change.... so I guess F1 drivers are too inept to drive a racecar through a chicane? Come on!
You have valid points however... You MUST remeber that there is HUGE difference in adding Chicane on Thursday morning before any of the teams tested vs before the race with NO TESTING OR SET-UP Chanages allowed.
I for one will NOT race on any track were a section was changed between my last session on the track and race time.
How would you like it if go Watkins Glen for running the short course. You pratice race and qualify on the short course. Then somebody says hey lets run the long course in for the race? No practice before hand. No tire pressure adjustments. Nothing all. Just run it and run in blind too since this was your first trip to the Glen.
Really I would site that one out as it dangerious to change the course before a race with no practice time.
06-23-2005, 04:22 PM
#23
Drifting
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Munich
Posts: 2,722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When deciding whether or not you would race, there is a great difference between amateurs and professionals. Contrary to what people believe, chicanes have been introduced late in the piece. The logic that runs 'Iwouldn't race if they introduced... and I hadn't practiced", is about as logical as refusing to race because its raining and we have only ever driven this track in the dry. Fine for people doing it for fun..... listen to the drivers' comments, most of them would have raced with a chicane there or different tyres.
I go to the races on a regular basis and can't say I hold the current crop of F1 drivers in high regard, but even so, many of them were very unhappy with the 'no race' decision. Oh, and Jordan are rats. I do think that Michelin has been very up front with their concerns and problem, whilst a charitable observer might assumre that the FIA hierarchy were either 'Brahms and Liszt' or suffering from jet lag, the poor dears. A lot of the FIA people are well past their 'use by date'.
R+C
I go to the races on a regular basis and can't say I hold the current crop of F1 drivers in high regard, but even so, many of them were very unhappy with the 'no race' decision. Oh, and Jordan are rats. I do think that Michelin has been very up front with their concerns and problem, whilst a charitable observer might assumre that the FIA hierarchy were either 'Brahms and Liszt' or suffering from jet lag, the poor dears. A lot of the FIA people are well past their 'use by date'.
R+C
06-23-2005, 04:55 PM
#24
M758... don't disagree at all. This was an extremely difficult decision and one I would not want to be forced to make, despite the fact that it is fun to second guess from the cheap seats. Personally I am scheptical of what kind of chicane they actually would have ended up with... what? Haybales? Orange cones?
My point is more that I think alot of his rationale was lame. If he'd said something like "we could not construct a chicane in 2 hours that would meet the minimum standards of track construction." Or even "I will not allow a change of track configuration after the last practice session. Period" and then just shut his mouth that would be one thing.
But you have to admit... those examples he gave were pretty silly. They certainly weren't convincing to me and if that really reflects the thought process he used, thats scary, and if it didn't its insulting that he thinks I would buy it.
As far as changing the track at the last minute, while I agree with your point about the Glen, we are talking about top pros here, not PCA Club Racers. I woudn't want to drive an 800hp car in the rain on slicks either, but they do it all the time. They should be expected to perform at a different level. IMHO to say an F1 driver could not handle it is ludicrous. Two practice laps and they would have it down cold.
This is not unusual in racing. This year I did the CR at Mid Ohip. I have never driven the track, and 1st day of practice was pretty much ruined by dampness and rain, and we got about 10 minutes of Sunday warmup. I basically started the race with about 20 minutes of actual track time we got in qualifying. I sucked, but I made it through without incident. I have to believe a top pro figuring out one chicane is easier than a 3rd rate schmuck like me learning Mid-Ohio.
BTW, Mid-Ohio is one of the most technically difficult tracks around
My point is more that I think alot of his rationale was lame. If he'd said something like "we could not construct a chicane in 2 hours that would meet the minimum standards of track construction." Or even "I will not allow a change of track configuration after the last practice session. Period" and then just shut his mouth that would be one thing.
But you have to admit... those examples he gave were pretty silly. They certainly weren't convincing to me and if that really reflects the thought process he used, thats scary, and if it didn't its insulting that he thinks I would buy it.
As far as changing the track at the last minute, while I agree with your point about the Glen, we are talking about top pros here, not PCA Club Racers. I woudn't want to drive an 800hp car in the rain on slicks either, but they do it all the time. They should be expected to perform at a different level. IMHO to say an F1 driver could not handle it is ludicrous. Two practice laps and they would have it down cold.
This is not unusual in racing. This year I did the CR at Mid Ohip. I have never driven the track, and 1st day of practice was pretty much ruined by dampness and rain, and we got about 10 minutes of Sunday warmup. I basically started the race with about 20 minutes of actual track time we got in qualifying. I sucked, but I made it through without incident. I have to believe a top pro figuring out one chicane is easier than a 3rd rate schmuck like me learning Mid-Ohio.
BTW, Mid-Ohio is one of the most technically difficult tracks around
06-24-2005, 02:14 AM
#25
Race Director
Originally Posted by JCP911S
He says it would be dangerous. How does slowing the cars down make the track more dangerous? He talks about not having time to analize all the possible deflections paths and crash angles on a turn that R Shuey totaled two cars on already... looks like they can't do that right anyway.
06-24-2005, 02:21 AM
#26
Race Director
Originally Posted by Nordschleife
When deciding whether or not you would race, there is a great difference between amateurs and professionals. Contrary to what people believe, chicanes have been introduced late in the piece. The logic that runs 'Iwouldn't race if they introduced... and I hadn't practiced", is about as logical as refusing to race because its raining and we have only ever driven this track in the dry. Fine for people doing it for fun..... listen to the drivers' comments, most of them would have raced with a chicane there or different tyres.
I go to the races on a regular basis and can't say I hold the current crop of F1 drivers in high regard, but even so, many of them were very unhappy with the 'no race' decision. Oh, and Jordan are rats. I do think that Michelin has been very up front with their concerns and problem, whilst a charitable observer might assumre that the FIA hierarchy were either 'Brahms and Liszt' or suffering from jet lag, the poor dears. A lot of the FIA people are well past their 'use by date'.
R+C
I go to the races on a regular basis and can't say I hold the current crop of F1 drivers in high regard, but even so, many of them were very unhappy with the 'no race' decision. Oh, and Jordan are rats. I do think that Michelin has been very up front with their concerns and problem, whilst a charitable observer might assumre that the FIA hierarchy were either 'Brahms and Liszt' or suffering from jet lag, the poor dears. A lot of the FIA people are well past their 'use by date'.
R+C
I've been following F1 pretty well since the late 70s and as well as I could from around the early 70s. I'm 99% certain a precedent had been set somewhere along the way to install a chicane at a F1 race during race weekend (after first practice at least). I'm not 100% certain, but my little monkey brain seems to remember somthing like that. Probably during the FISA/FOCA war actually.
06-24-2005, 12:17 PM
#27
Race Director
Well you must remember that for our cars adding a chinace 99% of the time won't change our set-up. For an F1 which is highly optimized yes it can change set-up. The driver can easily adapt, but the result may be tire, brake or suspension failures not anticipated due to different wear patterns. These would probably result in less relaiblity and could infact result in crash.
Seems to me that the best policy is to not change the course to one nobody has ever race with out practice and set-up time. Rain is frequenct occurance and teams are allowed to change tires even now in the raiin. If there is a risk of rain at a race teams will make allowances for such.
If you are given 30 in of practice at a new track and rains for 25 of those well that is racing. It happens. I first raced at willow springs with 30 min of practice time total. I was 1 or 2 seconds off class pole pace. Then during the race I simple followed the pole car a few laps (we grided by class groups). I ran my fastests laps then passed him and took the race win. So even with a little practice it was fine, but with ZERO ... no so.
Seems to me that the best policy is to not change the course to one nobody has ever race with out practice and set-up time. Rain is frequenct occurance and teams are allowed to change tires even now in the raiin. If there is a risk of rain at a race teams will make allowances for such.
If you are given 30 in of practice at a new track and rains for 25 of those well that is racing. It happens. I first raced at willow springs with 30 min of practice time total. I was 1 or 2 seconds off class pole pace. Then during the race I simple followed the pole car a few laps (we grided by class groups). I ran my fastests laps then passed him and took the race win. So even with a little practice it was fine, but with ZERO ... no so.
06-24-2005, 01:24 PM
#28
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
The whole point for me is about fairness. Why should the other teams get penalized for an inferior part? Max is absolutely right! Did anyone flinched when Ferrari's had tire failures and they had to retire from the race? The Michelin teams signed on with a supplier. The supplier ( Michelin ) brought a non suitable part for the race. They had to pay the concequence period. When the whole year they are winning races because they brought in a better tire did anyone protest? Since when parts have to be equal? Does anyone complain that Minardi and Jordan are seconds off the pace every lap? Should the rest put a speed limit so the Minardi's dont finish last and have a chance to "race" the other cars instead of just circulating on a race track? I personally blaime the teams. They ganged up on FIA and the fans using the muscle of being the majority on the paddock. Why? Because it would not be fair for them? They should have raced, under their own terms of ensuring safety for their drivers. FIA told them they could in fact change the tire in Q every 10 laps which was deemed safe by Michelin! So they would have made what 6 pit stops for tires? Why that would not be a race? FIA said in reality that there would be no penalties on this! So what they would have to fight for the bottom of the points? Isn't that a "show by itself? I actually bet that it would have been a much more interesting race than a normal one, with a flurry of activity and nailbiting action. Putting a chicane was simply wrong! First of all like I said the B teams did not need to be punished and second of all imagine if an accident had occured on the chicane between an M team and a B team. Who would be crying foul?
I'm gonna finish with one thought for you. Just think. If Bridgestone had been the supplier of a couple of more TOP teams, like BAR and McLaren for example. What do you think it would have happened? If the tables were reversed and the B cars had the problem, what do you think would have happened?
I'm gonna finish with one thought for you. Just think. If Bridgestone had been the supplier of a couple of more TOP teams, like BAR and McLaren for example. What do you think it would have happened? If the tables were reversed and the B cars had the problem, what do you think would have happened?
06-24-2005, 02:49 PM
#29
Mr. Excitement
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Danny I agree 100%. The chicane idea and the fact that the M teams held to it and would consider no other is pure obfustication.
The Michelin shod teams knew 3 things.
1. A chicane would not likely be approved and placed.
2. If it were it would mask the issues with the tires. Due to the tires more aggressive and faster compound they would have done well and the M teams could have then said “We only lost because the capricious and overbearing FIA slammed us with a tire rules penalty”
3. The tires were not unsafe and Michelin even admitted so as well as told the teams. They and some of the cars setups were merely too aggressive for the conditions. Michelin said they were good for 10 at full speed or entire race at reduced speed in 13.
Why is it when the guys you hire to enforce the rules do so, and do so without yealding to popular pressure, folks get pissed? Why don’t folks even think about the fact that other safe alternatives were presented and rebuffed by the teams that were in no place to argue? They wanted "A" were told no, that would be unfair and not in the rules. You can do "B, C or D" and they choose "E" - pack up and leave. B.S. they wanted to race. They could have but did not!
Preconceived notions and dislike of some the parties involved would explain it. None are so blind as those that choose not to see. Get past the Chicane! It was brought up to deflect true responsibility and inject plausible deniability in a high profile and high stakes game. Michelin played all in and lost the hand.
The Michelin shod teams knew 3 things.
1. A chicane would not likely be approved and placed.
2. If it were it would mask the issues with the tires. Due to the tires more aggressive and faster compound they would have done well and the M teams could have then said “We only lost because the capricious and overbearing FIA slammed us with a tire rules penalty”
3. The tires were not unsafe and Michelin even admitted so as well as told the teams. They and some of the cars setups were merely too aggressive for the conditions. Michelin said they were good for 10 at full speed or entire race at reduced speed in 13.
Why is it when the guys you hire to enforce the rules do so, and do so without yealding to popular pressure, folks get pissed? Why don’t folks even think about the fact that other safe alternatives were presented and rebuffed by the teams that were in no place to argue? They wanted "A" were told no, that would be unfair and not in the rules. You can do "B, C or D" and they choose "E" - pack up and leave. B.S. they wanted to race. They could have but did not!
Preconceived notions and dislike of some the parties involved would explain it. None are so blind as those that choose not to see. Get past the Chicane! It was brought up to deflect true responsibility and inject plausible deniability in a high profile and high stakes game. Michelin played all in and lost the hand.
06-24-2005, 10:38 PM
#30
Pro
Originally Posted by mdbickell
not that it really matters but.....
Max's dad was the head of the British **** party during WWII.
Regardless, he and Bernie are ****ing ********.
Max's dad was the head of the British **** party during WWII.
Regardless, he and Bernie are ****ing ********.
Sitll and ******* though.
Jeff
