Jean Todt?s Approval Rating IX

Are you happy with how F1 is being run by the FIA president?

Once every month at F1 Fanatic we look at how the president of the sport?s governing body, Jean Todt, is managing the championship.

Join in by casting your vote below.

FIA developments since the last approval rating

Ferrari team orders

Following the World Motor Sport Council’s verdict Todt, who did not take part in the deliberations, said there had not been enough evidence to punish Ferrari:

Before you say [they] are guilty you have to be able to prove that [they] are guilty.
Jean Todt

But the text of the WMSC decision contradicted that view, concluding Ferrari had used team orders:

It is self evident to the Judging Body of the WMSC that this was an implied team order using a message, and as such was contrary to article 39.1 [of the] Sporting Regulations.

The WMSC gave a different explanation for why Ferrari were not punished beyond the token fine already imposed by the race stewards, blaming “inconsistency in [the] application” of the rules on team orders. It asked for article 39.1 of the Sporting Regulations, which prohibits team orders, to be reviewed.

Since the verdict team principals of rival outfits have complained that the WMSC’s refusal to punish Ferrari for breaking the team orders rule leaves confusion over whether team orders can be used in future races.

13th F1 team

The WMSC decided none of the applicants for the vacant 13th team position in 2011 were suitable:

It was considered that none of the candidates met the requirements to be granted an entry into the Championship.

Consequently, the allocation of the 13th team will not be granted.

Read more: No 13th F1 team in 2011

2011 F1 calendar

The FIA has approved 20 races for inclusion in next year’s F1 calendar.

Read more: 2011 F1 calendar officially revealed with 20 races and season finale in Brazil

Staff licenses

The FIA is planning to set up a licensing scheme for top F1 staff.

This follows the FIA’s difficulty in preventing Flavio Briatore and Pat Symonds from participating in the sport following their involvement in the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix scandal.

Read more: Top F1 staff to have licenses

Road safety

F1 drivers could have their racing licenses endorsed for breaking the rules while driving on public roads under a new FIA plan:

The Code will be amended to clarify that if an International Super Licence holder is involved in a serious road traffic offence recognised by a national police authority, the FIA, depending on the severity of the case, may issue a warning or refer the matter to the International Disciplinary Tribunal, which may temporarily or indefinitely withdraw the competitor?s International Super Licence.

Read more: F1 drivers? road manners under scrutiny

Jean Todt’s Approval Rating

As an F1 fan, do you approve or disapprove of the way Jean Todt is handling his job as FIA President?

  • Approve (45%)
  • Disapprove (43%)
  • No opinion (12%)

Total Voters: 1,150

Loading ... Loading ...

Tell us how you voted and explain why in the comments.

Jean Todt?s Approval Ratings

Date Approve Disapprove No opinion
August 2010 60% 17% 23%
July 2010 54% 24% 22%
June 2010 53% 23% 24%
May 2010 78% 8% 14%
April 2010 63% 14% 23%
March 2010 53% 24% 23%
February 2010 57% 14% 29%
January 2010 55% 16% 29%
Jean Todt's approval rating, January-August 2010

Jean Todt's approval rating, January-August 2010

Image ?? FIA

Advert | Go Ad-free

110 comments on Jean Todt?s Approval Rating IX

1 2 3
  1. Hollus said on 29th September 2010, 9:42

    Well, one polemic decision about Ferrari, and all of a sudden, big disapproval.
    Short memory everyone, or is this Ferrari decision enough to topple 8 months of good work?

    • hawkfist said on 29th September 2010, 9:46

      Maybe it was that bad a decision in most peoples minds that it was more than enough to blight his presidency so far.

      You just cannot say “we couldn’t do anything because there’s no proof”, but still give them a $100k fine. It’s so utterly indefensible.

      • Technically, Todt isn’t responsable for the decision. He withdrew from the vote if I am not too mistaken

        • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 29th September 2010, 11:13

          That is true, but it’s fair to say he’s not concerned about one of his committees saying in effect, “yes, they broke a rule, but we’re not going to give them a meaningful punishment”.

          Based on what he said afterwards, he seems to have come to a completely different conclusion from the WMSC, which is very strange.

          • I fully agree there. Todt is responsible for the FIA now. It is a good thing to (at least appear) to distance himself from the ruling procedures himself.

            But him claiming there was not enough evidence before the complete ruling was published and the WMSC ruling Ferrari then guilty but not being punished more on pretty dubious grounds make it al seem too political and shying away from a real desicion with some kind of points loss and race ban, be it suspended.

            And the handling of the 13th team, taking this until the start of September, only to annouce no entrant is chosen, makes it even more of a farce. Who is he kidding, if they were not going to give it why not say so in June/July?

          • Saying something in a press interview and in court are two totally different matters. Ferrari didn’t appeal against stewards’ fine, but they surely would start an endless legal battle had WMSC punished them further. In my humble opinion the way the whole case ended was very clever on FIA side – Ferrari was marked out as the bad guys and F1 was saved from yet another off-track drama.

          • bosyber said on 29th September 2010, 14:59

            And that is what makes it political, isn’t it Bart. I don’t like it at all, it is giving in to a threat of legal action that is being used as extortion.

    • Tawerner said on 29th September 2010, 9:55

      It’s the approval rating for this month. So, people decide whether this month was worth of approval or disapproval.
      Disapproving now doesn’t mean the whole 8 months were bad. From my point of view, this rating is related to the Ferrari team order decision but only for the month in which the decision was made.

    • It is was his first major test and quite simply he failed to deliver. Especially considering they were found guilty and it was decided that a 100k fine was sufficient, a total joke in my opinion.

      • Red Andy (@red-andy) said on 29th September 2010, 11:07

        Todt had no involvement in the WMSC case that decided to punish Ferrari no further for the team orders breach. He specifically delegated responsibility for that case to his deputies, in order to avoid accusations of bias.

        That was a sensible move, even if – judging by the general tone of the response to this article – it has been completely ignored by many. For that reason I voted approve for the first time.

        • Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 29th September 2010, 11:20

          Judging by quite a few of the replies so far people disapproved of his comments afterwards. For me that wipes out his decision to stay out of things. It is, after all, an overall rating. If Ferrari had been thrown out of the championship I suspect there would still have been a majority of negative votes if he had adopted a similar stance afterwards.

    • dyslexicbunny said on 29th September 2010, 15:10

      To be fair, I voted disapprove both because of the failure to provide an acceptable response time for selection of the 13th team and because of the road safety deal.

      There was plenty of interest in racing for next year and instead, they took their time in selecting someone so of course no one could be ready in time to not get cut by the 107% rule.

      It’s not their job to tell drivers how to act outside of the events and if it gets the drivers into trouble, that’s their (the driver’s and perhaps the team’s) problem.

      I know he wasn’t involved in the Ferrari deal and therefore don’t hold him accountable.

      • Chippie said on 30th September 2010, 11:01

        I concur, the FIA met up and decided that after setting impossibly high entry requirements… None of the candidates for 13th met the entry requirements. Stupid FIA. I sense Ferrari’s influence in that decision, they hate all new teams.

    • Surely this is a measure of his approval rating for the last period? for a total approval rating, just look at the chart.

      Perhaps the question should read ‘do you approve of the way JT has handled the presidency in the last x races?’

    • Couldn’t agree more Holus. It’s childish and pathetic to blame Todt for the spineless inability of WMSC members to act responsibly.

      Yes, the WMSC decision on Ferrari team orders was among the worst examples of gutless surrender we’ve seen in F1, and there have been plenty of other examples of white flag waving in the murky past. But though Todt is far from blameless in tolerating the circumstances which led to this fiasco, he did not contribute to the final cowardly decision.( or lack of decision ! )

      And finally, Todt has done pretty damn well this year to strike a fair balance in his dealings with every warring faction in the pirana pool world of F1.

      Todt deserves cool appraisal, not ignorant petulance.

    • It takes a long, long time to build up trust, but only one ‘suspicious’ incident to destroy it… especially in a sport not short of scandal.

      • we all feared it woudl come to this once he took the helm of the FIA. and to his luck, the team order issue happened within his old team in which he himself ordered them over and over again… so it is hard to judge him fairly on that…

        i think the decision was good for the sport and title through and through, but if i were on the WMSC, i would consider fining the team and drivers by means of switching the positions and the points and giving the team a 25 point penalty as well as put it on probation for the rest of the season…that would be a good fair deterrent i think,,

    • yes because if you brake rule you brake ….and no mater how long you make good work that will not put you in position to fix the results in any sports including F1

  2. Disprove, once again. I have voted so for the past 4 polls.

  3. Harv's said on 29th September 2010, 9:57

    when he was elected i said that i would judge him when ferrari ended up in the dog box and how the FIA would react to it. Im very unimpressed and could see the decision on team order coming from the moment Massa slowed down

  4. ExParot said on 29th September 2010, 10:17

    I was willing to give Todt a chance, but after the Hokenheim Ferrari disgrace I’m not so sure. Alonso was handed a victory that could end up securing the WDC for him and that seems utterly short sighted from the FIA.

    Webber was not penalised for his reckless move on Hamilton, which I believe was intended to take both of them out of the race; I cant understand what went on there, because that is also a decision that could effect the outcome of the WDC.

    I think we should hold praise for Todt, until we see a bit more consistent decision making from the FIA.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 29th September 2010, 10:20

      which I believe was intended to take both of them out of the race

      Webber intended to take himself out of the race? Erm, no.

      • ExParot said on 29th September 2010, 16:33

        Take both of them out. I just can’t see how Webber was ever going to pass Hamilton at that corner; it looked reckless if not intentional :)

        • … So Webber is an idiot? Yeah why not… But I’m fairly sure he would have preferred Hamilton just to stay behind….

    • I agree with you on the first paragraph, but what you say about Webber just does not make sense. Even Lewis directly after that nor McLaren did not have any sentiments for blaming him.

      And why on earth would he want to take himself out?

      • ExParot said on 29th September 2010, 16:27

        You may want to look at the replay of the incident again. Webber was passed and then late braked into an increasigly diminishing gap. There was no way on earth that contact between the 2 cars was going to be avoided.

        As far as Webber was concerned, and his team told him on the radio, he was racing Hamilton for 3rd. There was nothing he could have done about Alonso and Vettel but if Hamilton got 3rd he, Webber, would have his championship lead considerably cut and if also passed by Button, who was on fresher tyres, he would have been level with Hamilton.

        I remember Webber being very vociferous about Hamiltons “dangerous driving” when passing ppl in the 2008 season. I wonder if he would have been as restrained as Hamilton was if the roles were reversed in Singapore?

        Anyway thats history, lets look forward to Japan and hopefully clean driving from the top five contenders.

        • HewisLamilton said on 30th September 2010, 17:14

          Hmmm, I thought it was a typo, but apparently not. Hamilton was passing Webber, not the other way around.

    • chemakal said on 29th September 2010, 14:43

      You are very right ExParot, being Webber and Alonso under Briatore’s management, surely it was a team order from Flavio to Webber to crash against Hammilton so Alonso has free way to the tittle.
      Yes, yes, the whole world and part of the galaxy are against Hammilton…

    • You sir have played too many videogames. If both were knocked out, he would’ve seen his gap to Alonso-Vettel-Button vanish in thin air. How ‘smart’ would that be?

    • Daniel said on 30th September 2010, 6:46

      If both drivers had retired Alonso would be leading the WDC, and Vettel would be much closer to Webber in the standings. How would that have been better for Webber than if Hamilton had passed him? If you can explain that I might listen to the next thing you say.

    • Patrickl said on 30th September 2010, 9:28

      Usually in these cases the car behind survives tapping the lead car on the rear wheel.

      Button survived tapping Alonso on the rear wheel in Australia (and he went on to tap Schumacher). Liuzzi survived tapping Massa in Canada (a few times even).

      Accidents like this happen a lot and usually just the lead car spins or gets a puncture and that’s it.

      Hamilton was a bit too far ahead in Monza. So his front wheel got taken off from behind when he was trying to break and prevent an accident.

      It’s a pretty calculated risk just to keep a front wheel in.

      It’s odd that Massa did pretty much the same in 2008. Although Massa went a lot further and rammed into Hamilton going over the grass almost t-boning Hamilton. Massa did get a drive through for that one. His car was fine though and Hamilton spun.

  5. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 29th September 2010, 10:18

    My approval dipped after the FIA didn’t publish Ferrari, but Todt does have a point about it.

    • Agree actually, the way the law has been enforced FIA was in an impossible situation. How we really judge him comes from how he deals with the team orders rule and whether he actually adds clarity for next year.

    • As for the FIA, now they can just forget about ruling at all as their rulings were so inconsistant in the past, that it should be hard to defend giving whatever penalty for other things that went unpunished in the past.

      Sure maybe Ferrari threathened to take it to the courts. But how on earth would they want to prove things like McLaren giving team orders in Turkey this year to prove TO going unpunished in the past?

      • US_Peter (@us_peter) said on 29th September 2010, 18:58

        Exactly. When they decided they couldn’t punish them because the rule hadn’t been applied consistently in the past they set a dangerous precedent. I’m willing to bet most articles from the rulebook tome have been applied inconsistently at one time or another. So going forward then, the FIA can no longer enforce any rules. Do what you want teams!

  6. I still maintain Todt hasn’t done anything to merit a disapproval from me. Looking at the shortlist of FIA developments, they have done a lot of good work. The sticking point for everyone must be the Ferrari decision, but remember the decision not to further punish Ferrari was made by the WMSC, not Todt himself and he was at pains to point out he had no direct involvement in the decision. What more can you ask for from him? Do you really want to go back to the days of Mosely dictating to the WMSC?

  7. I think that there is still confusion about ‘team orders’, even after the WSMC ruling, and the fact that nobody is going to discuss for a long time (if at all) means that Todt and the FIA must get disapprovals for now and until they actually DO something about it. There was the perfect opportunity to draw a line and say ‘thus far and no farther’, and it wasn’t taken.
    The 13th team – why was it put forward in the first place? Does this mean that if another team came forward next year it would get in, or is that it? I’d like a bit more information about what happens next year if a team consistently breaks the 107% rule, will it be thrown out, leaving a grid of 11 teams, or replaced?
    The staff licences are rubbish, since both Pat and Flavio are back working in the sport already, and logically so are other people behind the various scandals involving McLaren, Ferrari and Renault over the past few years. Under this scheme they are all going to get licences and be able to carry on as before. Just as with the ‘team orders’, the FIA is pretending to have solved the problem without actually doing anything……..

    • Strange, that they took until September to decide not to have another team. Why not stop it in June/July before these teams invested in development?
      I already heard speculation, that the idea is for ART to apply during next year with Group Lotus backing.

      • bosyber said on 29th September 2010, 15:05

        And does that make it any better, or a lot worse, with a family relation available for appearance of nepotism, and cooperation with a group who just started an ugly political fight against a year old team that has been the most successful of the newcomers, because they want to compete against them now they have new management. Bad stuff, IMO.

  8. DanielPT said on 29th September 2010, 10:26

    The Ferrari decision was a huge mistake. Even if he stepped out of the decision making group. The rule was there, Ferrari broke the rule and was punished by the stewards. Ferrari was even declared guilty by the WMSC! It is not because the rule is crap or because it is badly made that people won’t get punished. Once again, FIA was lenient with Ferrari stuff. I bet the next non Ferrari team to do it will get utterly punished…

  9. The F1 Teams are pretty smart. The Brit-centric media insists that Ferrari were not punished. That is absolutely incorrect. They were fined etc. That is a FACT – even in a blog, readers expect to hear basic facts. The opinion that the punishment was not enough is fair game though.

    Also, where is the cry from F1 teams both in the media (except for some initial comments from C. Horner) and in terms of official protest? Both DC and Mark Webber (as well as Cosworth powered Williams)- who I’m quite sure have a lot more insight than most fans, thought Massa was ham-handed, but that what occurred was not out of the norm in F1. As sad as that reality may be for fans. Ferrari probably had reams of data and “evidence” of other teams doing similar things etc. F1 teams were smart to let some of the public vent and not get dragged into it (not open themselves up)….

    While it’s obvious what happened, at no time did Ferrari ever tell Massa to pull over for the faster Alonso. That Massa may have felt he would’ve been sacked had he not taken the “hints” is another matter… getting a “conviction” was never a slam dunk and the sport didn’t want to open an even larger can of worms.

    But it’s an opinion poll and we all have our opinions…

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 29th September 2010, 10:45

      The Brit-centric media insists that Ferrari were not punished. That is absolutely incorrect. They were fined etc. That is a FACT – even in a blog, readers expect to hear basic facts.

      I did point out they got a fine:

      Ferrari were not punished beyond the token fine already imposed by the race stewards

      • Nathan Bradley said on 29th September 2010, 10:57

        And it is also (only) about a third of what somebody will pay for a brand new Ferrari road car.

        What irks me is the fact that the WMSC found Ferrari guilty and then Jean Todt said: Before you say [they] are guilty you have to be able to prove that [they] are guilty.

        Jean, the WMSC did prove that Ferrari were guilty, so you can’t say that. If they did wrong, please punish them in direct proportion with the crime, not just a slap on the wrist.

      • HewisLamilton said on 29th September 2010, 14:56

        I am curious, what denotes this fine as a “token” fine? It seems like a fair fine for the stewards to impose as punishment.

        • bosyber said on 29th September 2010, 15:08

          The fact that teams like Ferrari regularly spend millions to get the car a tiny bit faster for a few points extra – 100k is a few sets of tires, maybe, no impediment against doing it again at all. As Horner agreed, cheapest points in a long time in F1.

          • HewisLamilton said on 29th September 2010, 15:21

            The fact that every team practices team orders makes me think the fine was a bit over the top. Shame on anyone who thinks otherwise.

          • Mike-e said on 30th September 2010, 1:13

            yeah, but this year its been the order of ‘hold position’ which is almost fair enough, race for the first 3/4 then bring it home, no last minute catastrophies. This is the first time since the ruling we have seen ‘swap position’, and it shouldn’t be done. I think the fine was pathetic, they should have been fined more like 100million, that would stop them. 100k to ferrari is like 10p to me or you

        • Montezemolo will just open the petty cash box and send his office boy round to FIA with the dosh in 10 Euro notes….that’s how significant a $100k slap on the wrist is to a Fiat Motor Premium Brand Company (aka Ferrari). A flea bite.

    • hawkfist said on 29th September 2010, 10:48

      They weren’t punished by the WMSC which is what most people reported. They were initially fined at the time by the stewards, and that’s the only punishment handed down to them.

      It IS a fact that the WMSC did not punish them.

    • Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 29th September 2010, 11:33

      Ferrari probably had reams of data and “evidence” of other teams doing similar things etc. F1 teams were smart to let some of the public vent and not get dragged into it (not open themselves up)….

      You’re onto something there. The WMSC did say part of not giving any further punishment was that “other teams had done it and not been punished”. It was and is still a ridiculous reason, but it could very well be why the other teams made no fuss, even though two stood to gain from a further punishment. Deducting the points from Alonso (rather than Ferrari’s WCC points from Hockenheim) was probably never going to happen, so it wouldn’t have been worth opening a can of worms, as you say.

    • Interesting that all Ferrari referred to in the open were 2 instances, where allegedly TO had been used, but it was far from being a similar situation and i seriously doubt, that Ferrari had evidence to prove this should have been punished as TO with direct effect on the competition.
      Why not use a clear case from Ferrari’s own past? Or have Alonso confirm some of possible TO at Renault?

      Thing is, if the FIA were a proper governing body, they should have called Ferrari’s bluff and had them try and prove those alleged teamorders. The punishment from the Stewards was maximum they could give, but it was a very cheap victory for Alonso.

  10. I had to vote disapprove this time (1st time ever) because although he is doing some good stuff on the big issues he seems to have handled them poorly.

    Immaterial of the outcome of Ferrari team orders meeting, Todt’s public comments should have matched that of the council and it clearly didn’t and I think the whole issue of the 13th team has been a fiasco. On the other hand it is good that he is changing the F1 judicial system even though that has not been widely reported, and the things on licences are good, but the F1 president should be all about leadership and integrity and on the two big issues both seem to be lacking.

  11. I will DISAPPROVED cause more should have been done on that Ferrari team-order. Other than that I am happy that he didn’t brought any 13th unknown team & he alone with Bernie increased the number of races in 2011.

  12. I think he’s done a great job operating behind the shadows to differentiate himself from the Herr Mosley’s reign, and he’s made a good start at making positive changes but more still needs to be done.
    And I feel that letting Ferrari get off without further punishment was a bit of a mistake (a big ‘bit’).

    But give him a bit of time and I think he will do well.

  13. Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 29th September 2010, 11:17

    Disapprove for the first time. Here’s why:

    Staff licences a good idea long overdue, but whilst you can’t really be against censures for drivers who break the law on the road, it’s a bit of a gimmick, not to mention that any driver breaking the law will already be punished: by the law. It’s irrelevant to their safety as a competitive driver.

    Now of course for the disapproves:

    - 13th team took far too long in the first place and it doesn’t look like any lessons will be learned for next year. Good that no-one unsuitable came in but you could argue legitimate prospects were forced to withdraw because of a lack of preparation time.
    - Of course, the WMSC decision. Not that Todt did or should have had any part to play in what the decision actually was, but the weak way he handled the aftermath – including that rubbish about “no proof” – showed an alarming lack of competent leadership. In fact, had he been smart he should have said the punishment was too weak but he respected the decision, to score some points and at least appear he was being credible.

  14. I think the way the 13th team issue was handled was pretty shoddy, they didn’t get serious entries from the likes of ART or Prodrive purely because they designed a process which made it seem they were never serious about finding a 13th team in the first place. I’m also unconvinced about drivers having their superlicences black marked for anything as trivial as what Lewis did but on the other hand I’m delighted to see Brazil back as the final round as it should be.

    The WMSC decision represented an outbreak of common sense in the FIA which has been lacking for so many years. It would have been easy for them to bring out a draconian punishment as so many were calling for, but wise heads previaled and they decided the rule itself was completely unworkable and could not survive in its current form. Although its true that Jean Todt was not directly involved in the decision I felt it reflected well on the culture change at the FIA since he took over and therefore I’ve moved from “no opinion” back to “approve”

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 29th September 2010, 16:20

      they decided the rule itself was completely unworkable and could not survive in its current form.

      And yet, they found Ferrari had broken the rule, so in this case it clearly wasn’t unworkable.

      Whenever people trot out the “you can’t police it” line I always think it’s a bit presumptuous given that they haven’t really tried.

      Except on this one occasion when they did try and they did find team orders had been used.

      At no point has the WMSC tried to pursue a use of team orders and found itself unable to. With the huge amount of data they have access to – radio transcripts, car telemetry etc… – I don’t think it is impossible to enforce at all.

      • “And yet, they found Ferrari had broken the rule, so in this case it clearly wasn’t unworkable.”

        Its not so much that its unworkable so much as rules cannot be selectively enforced on the basis of public opinion. The actual breach of the regulation was identical in Turkey 2007 or Hockenheim 2008, in fact in that race Heikki was actually told “Lewis is faster than you” I’m fully aware of the differences in circumstances but the breach of the rule was the same.

        The WMSC clearly state the decision not to punish Ferrari was because of the inconsistency of its implication since 2003. Since other teams have used team orders and gone unpunished and used them under the assumption that they can breach the regulation it as long as they do it subtly. The rule had to either be reworded to reflect the nuances of what is acceptable or scrapped all together.

        Surely the FIA deciding not to enforce a badly worded rule that was a knee-jerk reaction to an unpopular event 8 years ago is a sign of progress.

        • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 29th September 2010, 17:54

          Its not so much that its unworkable so much as rules cannot be selectively enforced on the basis of public opinion.

          I’m not saying they should be. If McLaren did get on the radio and told Kovalainen to pull over they should have had a penalty.

          I doubt it would have made a difference if McLaren had done so given how easily Hamilton passed other drivers – Massa for example. Given the circumstances it’s not surprising the FIA didn’t bother to get involved. Still, if they had done and found wrongdoing that would have been fair enough.

          Surely the FIA deciding not to enforce a badly worded rule that was a knee-jerk reaction to an unpopular event 8 years ago is a sign of progress.

          Ask yourself why what happened at Austria and Hockenheim got exactly the same reaction. People don’t want rigged races.

          Progress would be acknowledging the damage F1 does to itself by allowing teams to interfere with races in this way, realising the stewards have the technology and the means to police a ban, and enforcing the rule accordingly.

          This isn’t progress, this is failing to learn from past mistakes.

          • That was very well said.

            What I can’t understand is this > “inconsistency in [the] application”

            I mean, if your look for inconsistency in F1, you don’t exactly have to look far do you?

      • newnhamlea1 (@newnhamlea1) said on 29th September 2010, 22:11

        It is unenforcable, the fia obviosly came to an agreement with ferrari that they would admit guilt (or not plead not guilty) in return for a token punishment. In a court of law, which is what ferrari were threatening, the fia’s evidence would not stand up, they cannot PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that ferrari used team orders even though we all KNOW they did, there is no evidence of the team actually stating ‘felipe move over’

        • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 29th September 2010, 22:37

          In a court of law, which is what ferrari were threatening

          Really?

          I’m having trouble believing there’s any good publicity to be gained from going to a law court and arguing for your right to fix the result of a sporting event.

  15. FIA changed the way championship fight was going. Ferrari was given chance to fix their engine problems in the middle of the season. Clearly they took the whole advantage out of it.

    Why they dont let Reanult etc. level the power loss to others, while the give Ferrari this kind of advantage.

    So Todt as FIAs president has done a lousy job.
    + The Teamorder case. + RB wing case. They made legal wing to not legal coz Ferrari and Macca was comlaining about flexi wings. Really bad job done under Todt. Clearly he has a soft spot for FIArrari

    • bosyber said on 29th September 2010, 15:10

      But it was the teams allowing Ferrari, but not Renault, not FIA.

    • chemakal said on 29th September 2010, 15:32

      No, several teams headed by MacLaren complained about Ferrari’s and RB’s frontwings and both teams were inspected.

      And no, it’s not called FIArrari, it’s called maFIA, with Charlie Whiting as the “conseglieri” protecting young boy Hammilton (still very young as he keeps proving in the last GPs).
      HAve a look at this one:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwm4iqWS8v0&feature=fvw

      • Literally the most hilarious thing that has occured since Todt became President is this fantasically misguided veiw that the FIA favours Hamilton and McLaren of all things. I mean, have you ever watched F1 before 2010? The accusations are so incredibly baseless and whiny it brings a smile.

        Anyway the flexi wing test was a bit of a croc, as flexing mostly occured at speeds higher that when 100kg of loading would occur, althought the bib test was better proven by the way everyones changed up, fairly good sign that skulduggery was going on.

    • Weren’t Renault given an opportunity to work on their engines a couple of years ago?

      Ferrari were given permission to fix parts not increase power and the FIA are very strict with their checks so yes they had some help but it only helped reliability.

      Flexi parts (which Ferrari also apparently had) were always banned just their tests couldn’t always detect them or they didn’t flex enough to be illegal.

      Todt actually removed himself from anything to do with the WMSC when it came to the team orders so it wouldn’t be biased. I honestly don’t see how he’s meant to have looked after Ferrari.

      Charlie doesn’t favour anyone either. He doesn’t lay down the law of the land, it’s a full group of stewards during the race then the WMSC or FIA after. The decisions have been inconsistent in the past and quite lenient on everyone this year. Seb and Massa have both tried to drive into Hamilton (China and Bahrain) yet went away unpunished so that’s been against him.

      The video posted shows examples from ages ago when Todt wasn’t president so isn’t entirely relevant.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 29th September 2010, 16:10

      Why don’t they let Renault etc… level the power loss to others,

      They did, two years ago, under the same engine freeze as operates now.

      it’s called maFIA, with Charlie Whiting as the “consigliere” protecting young boy Hamilton

      By mis-advising McLaren at Spa in ’08 leading to the team being stripped of their win? Funny way of going about it.

      • Did Renault get to level the engine power in the middle of the season??

        What i remember is that it was after season. I might be wrong though.

        • … i checked, and it was prior 09. But in my little world during and prior is 2 different things.

          F1Fanatics:
          “Ferrari has confirmed it has gained permission from the FIA to modify its engines ahead of the Spanish Grand Prix. The team hopes it will solve the reliability problems it has suffered with its power units.”

          • I know they got permission to fix their engines for reliability purposes but that doesn’t mean they got it because they are Ferrari or that any other manufacturer wouldn’t have been allowed to do the same.

1 2 3

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.