Debate: Do the FIA engineer championship showdowns?
There are often allegations that the FIA favours one driver, or team, over another. I don’t take those claims very seriously.
But it does sometimes seem as though decisions are made with the purpose of engineering championship showdowns at the final round of the year. After all, it keeps up public interest in the season.
Does the sport’s governing body try to keep the championship battle alive until the end?
Here are a couple of stewards’ decisions that conveniently left the title hanging in the balance with one round to go:
A string of decisions went against Michael Schumacher, including disqualification at Silverstone (and exclusion from two further races) and Spa-Francorchamps.
That kept Damon Hill in the title fight until the final round – when Schumacher swiped into Hill’s car, taking the Briton out of the race, and winning the championship.
Jacques Villeneuve, along with several other drivers, were penalised for passing yellow flags without slowing down sufficiently during practice at Suzuka. But as Villeneuve had committed a similar misdemeanour earlier in the season, he was excluded from the weekend.
Villeneuve raced under appeal, arguing that he had passed the yellow flag on a straight and thought that lifting off or braking would have been more dangerous, citing the fact that other drivers had done the same in his defence.
But after the race his team were leant on to drop the charge, which they did. Nonetheless, Villeneuve won the title at Jerez following a controversial clash with Michael Schumacher.
Perhaps the most celebrated championship controversy of all. The Ferraris were disqualified from their one-two finish at the Malaysian Grand Prix for having barge boards of illegal dimensions. That made Mika Hakkinen of McLaren champion.
To no-one’s great surprise Ferrari’s appeal was accepted and the title went down to the final round once again.
The Michelin-supplied teams and drivers had enjoyed a healthy advantage through the middle of the season until the FIA changed the tyre rules following a complaint fro Bridgestone.
Michelin were forced to bring new tyres and every race from that point on was won by Bridgestone-shod Ferrari, giving Michael Schumacher his sixth championship win.
Related links
- Down to the wire – F1′s great championship deciders
- Debate: Which driver deserves the title?
- Debate: Who’s to blame at Honda?
- Debate: Too wet to race?
- Debate: A1 Grand Prix
- Debate; Fuji vs Suzuka
- Debate: 2007 season spoiled by scandal?
- Debate: Should McLaren appeal against spying verdict?
- Debate: Will the safety car decide the title?
- Debate: 22 best drivers in the world?
- Debate: The best ITV F1 title theme tune
- Debate: When did you start watching F1?
- Join in more debates
Tags: f1 / formula one / formula 1 / grand prix / motor sport
verasaki said on 12th October 2007, 5:32
That’s the fun of F1, there are the rules and no matter how they’re written, there is always someone sort of clever out there who can interpret them into a usefull little device. And when another team finds out and points the finger then the FIA says “whoops!” and clarifies. Not unlike real life, actually. Would Ferrari have walked this championship if someone hadn’t leaked the flexi floor concept? I sort of doubt.
The FIA manipulating championship showdowns? Sorry, engineering etc. Let’s just say I think they have a bizarre sort of “pay your dues” attitude to some of the front drivers for a season or two. It doesn’t hit a Brit driver very often but, it wouldn’t surprise me if Hamilton takes a ding or two next year. Rosberg is looking like a likely candidate as well.
It doesn’t necessarily skew the championship, there are too many variables coming from everywhere else to make anything even remotely possible, much less a certainty, but it does jack with the odds.
Loki said on 12th October 2007, 10:40
So the FIA aren’t popular – but whatever situation comes in that requires their intervention, like it or not, it’s a really damned if they do, damned if they don’t scenario.
Penalise someone/some team, there’s bound to be an unroar from some camp. For someone/some team they don’t penalise, it’s construed as inconsistency.
I don’t so much think the FIA are engineering championships, it’s just that the people at the front tend to, or more susceptible to I should say, get into more “trouble”. As Bernie said about the Mclaren saga, if it were any 2 backmarkers no one would care.
That said, with the spy case, Max Mosely did want to impeach the drivers as well, but didn’t . . . by allowing them to continue in the championship given the team’s been punished (they really couldn’t just throw it away could they). . . could that be construed as “engineering”? Guess that’s an entirely different matter.
oliver said on 12th October 2007, 16:48
The FIA and specifically, Max Mosley is to blame for all these suggestions that Alonso is not getting a favourable treatment at Mclaren. After Alonso, as it was revealed, had notified Ecclestone of the availability of certain emails, despite initialy denying their existence to Mclaren, the FIA granted the drivers immunity, but Max also suggested, that there would be steps put in place to ensure there was no backlash from the Mclaren team.
Almost coincidentally, we have began hearing of Alonso complaining that he was getting no help from the team, no support, strange things were happening to his car.
The issue now becomes, how did Alonso’s complaints from earlier in the season, that the press was not giving him much attention for his work in the team and that also, they often cheer more for Hamilton than they do him during qualifying by team members, to what we have as at today, where it would almost seem like there is sabotage being done on his car.
The questions are:-
:- Is the FIA trying to destabilize Maclaren to the point where they are forced to handicap a driver with a greater potential of winning the championship in the name of fairness to the other driver?
:- Is the FIA hoping to weaken the team, by ensuring they lose their star driver to another team, there by reducing Mclarens chances of winning the constructors championship the following year?
:- Would the drivers, now both feeling aggrieved, be so emotionally charged, that they become unwilling to help each other win the drivers championship, with the net result being their unwillingness to yeild to the other, and thus taking each other out, there by handing the drivers championship to the Ferrari driver still in contention?
:-If Mclaren are found to have in anyway effected the drivers championship by favouring a driver, since I do not yet know of any specific threat made by the FIA, would the result be automatically anulled and the victory by default going to the Ferrari driver still in contention for the championship?
I am just curious on this points, perhaps its just nothing but wind.
alan said on 15th October 2007, 13:48
It has allways been that if a rule i s made then engineers will try to invent? a different way to gain advantage – the first rear wings – tyrells 6 wheel car,etc – the person I recall who allways sailed closest too the wind was graham chapman – struts and chassis lightened to within a ounce of colapse – but that is/was the beauty of F1 – innovation – instead we have regulators/dictators who retro introduce rules to minimise advantage – time for a revolution maybe – and everyone apart from ferrari – to tell the fia and the wee man – they will set up their own races???