Jean Todt’s Approval Rating XII

Debates and polls

Jean Todt, champions, FIA Gala, 2010

Jean Todt, champions, FIA Gala, 2010

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

New rules for 2011

Several rules changes have been made for next year including the following (see the links for further details):

Smaller, more fuel-efficient engines in 2013

From 2013 F1 cars will use 1.6-litre engines with four cylinders. Todt is understood to have played a leading role in getting teams to agree on smaller engine capacities.

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 (53%)
  • Disapprove (34%)
  • No opinion (13%)

Total Voters: 229

Loading ... Loading ...

You need to sign in to vote. You can register an account here or read more information here.

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

Jean Todt?s Approval Ratings

Date Approve Disapprove No opinion
November 2010 71% 18% 11%
October 2010 60% 24% 16%
September 2010 44% 43% 12%
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-November 2010

Jean Todt's Approval Rating January-November 2010

Debates and polls

Browse all debates and polls

Image ?? FIA

Advert | Go Ad-free

64 comments on Jean Todt’s Approval Rating XII

  1. Ned Flanders (@ned-flanders) said on 28th December 2010, 0:12

    I suppose this month Todt’s popularity will be dictated on whether people are in favour of the 2013 rule changes or not. In theory I think they’re great, so I voted approve.

    However, they are pretty drastic, and I think it’ll be interesting to see how the transition goes in a few years time. The introduction of KERS has been a bit of a mess thus far, let’s hope the move to turbos and ‘ground effect’ is a bit more successful

    • Daniel said on 28th December 2010, 0:35

      Technical changes I’m ok with. Changes that make the racing more ‘false’ I’m not. This is supposed to be the elite level of the sport – no place for gimmicks.

      However, as per my post below the specifics of the rules shouldn’t determine our opinion of how Todt is performing his job, because as far as I’m concerned that’s not what his job is about.

      • Ronman (@ronman) said on 28th December 2010, 9:41

        I like the new regulations, but i think Todt alone would have not made it happen, but i do appreciate his drive to make the sport more road car relevant, because as it is, it’s not even close, these cars share nothing with even the highest performance road-cars.

        as for the scrapping of the team orders, I’m all for it, what I’m against, feverishly, is a stupid overtake maneuver that insults everyone.., and then lying and denial…a la Teflonso…

        a legitimate place swap or team tactic with a leader and a wingman is not a wrong thing, but insulting people’s intelligence for years is… i wonder if Alonso will ever admit it was an actual intended swap, or will he go on saying that Massa was rubbish anyway….

    • I approved too, and apart from the 107% rule, the rest are positive developments in my opinion.

    • JohnGreen (@johngreen) said on 28th December 2010, 11:48

      I am not suprised he let Ferrari get away with Germany this year, remember he was on Ferrari`s pay roll for a long time.

      • He recused himself from the hearing(s) and he isn’t the dictator that Mosley was. He left it to others to make the decision about Ferrari and frankly, that really doesn’t have much to do with November anyways. If the teams really didn’t want team orders, they surely could have been a bit louder in their opposition as there was barely a squeek from any of the teams with only Red Bull really saying much of anything and then only because they were pestered constantly about it for a reaction by the news media.

  2. newnhamlea1 (@newnhamlea1) said on 28th December 2010, 0:17

    I dont particularly like the 2013 rules that have been proposed and I dont like the new engine formula. I personally think they should leave the rules alone. However, I am glad the ban on team orders has been lifted. In conclusion I am kind of on the fence at the moment, leaning towards disaprove due to the continuos meddling with the rules.

    • Daniel said on 28th December 2010, 0:32

      How much influence does the FIA President have on the rules proposed? Is anyone giving credit or otherwise to Todt for rules changes in Rallying (which he also oversees with the same authority)?

      Maybe we are all influenced by the way Mosely ran things, but the President shouldn’t be heavily involved in that stuff surely? The President’s job should be to facilitate rule changes not to decide which ones to make.

      • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 28th December 2010, 19:12

        Is anyone giving credit or otherwise to Todt for rules changes in Rallying

        The intention is that they shouldn’t, as the questions asks what do you think of him ‘as an F1 fan’. Incidentally, from what I’ve seen of it I think he’s made some good calls on the rallying rules.

        • Daniel said on 29th December 2010, 11:45

          That’s not actually what I meant.

          I meant do Rallying people thing about the role of the FIA president in the same way as F1 people seem to?

          I don’t think Mosely interfered to the same degree in Rallying as he did in F1. So, I don’t think Rallying people have an expectation that the President should be held responsible for the specific rules that are implemented. Do you understand what I’m saying?

  3. Daniel said on 28th December 2010, 0:37

    Keith, good change to the colours. They make more sense now. Personally, I’d have neutral between Approve and Disapprove but as you’ve called it ‘no opinion’ I can see why you’ve gone for the layout you have.

    • Toby Bushby (@toby-bushby) said on 29th December 2010, 0:15

      They make more sense now. Personally, I’d have neutral between Approve and Disapprove…

      Someone else was talking about this a while back (perhaps you?), but I think they were wrong. This is the classic “yes, no, maybe” setup. What’s wrong with it?

      • Toby Bushby (@toby-bushby) said on 29th December 2010, 0:19

        Oh, and I voted ‘approve’. Why? Because I like a man who comes into his job and starts organising things to run in a smooth fashion. Todt has done that (for example) by firstly separating the powers of the President, therefore creating a new level of transparency immediately. There can be bickering about what rule changes are good or not, but surely no-one can doubt the professionalism of Jean Todt. He is showing the FIA how a president should behave.

        • Daniel said on 29th December 2010, 11:42

          This is what I was talking about above. So thanks to Todt we have a clear idea of what the President’s role is (agree this is excellent work btw). Does that role have anything to do with the direction the rules take? Does it allow him to have much to do with the specifics of the rules? This is what I want to know.

      • Daniel said on 29th December 2010, 11:49

        Well, there’s noting actually wrong with it. It’s just if disagree was on top, with a flat edge down one axis (like approve is on the bottom) I could quantify much more easily the disapprove trend. It would be easier to compare the approve and disapprove sides at a glance too, because their shapes would be more symmetric.

  4. Victor. (@victor) said on 28th December 2010, 0:39

    I don’t like the lift of the ban on team orders.
    I don’t like the reintroduction of the 107% rule.
    I don’t like the introduction of adjustable rear wings.
    I’m not too fond of the 2013 changes.

    I think it’s the first time I disapproved…

    • Scalextric (@scalextric) said on 28th December 2010, 5:21

      Exact same reaction here. Not sure if it’s Todt’s responsibility but he gets to carry the buck.
      Team orders: I thought the old system worked fine, team orders may have occasionally slipped through but were politically incorrect and therefore limited.
      The 107% rule has been unnecessary. I look forward to the exception being implemented for a leading team’s drive who has mechanical problems early in Q1. Not.
      Adjustable rear wings. What could be more gimmicky? We’ll be guessing who’s within one second all race long. And adjustable front wings didn’t help much, did they?

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 30th December 2010, 20:49

        I agree with the both of you on disliking the legality of Team Orders and the 107% rule.
        Just think of the shouts when next year the Stewards have to allow Alonso or Vettel to race after some problems in Q1!
        With team orders, I see this as a worrying trend for rules/ruling to become more political, as the use of “bringing the sport into disrepute” is something of a fix all without any limits or bounds.

        The adjustable rear wing is far from being my favourite, I hope it will get dropped after early season testing.
        The new engine and chassis rules look promising, this is an area where Todt does good to let the technical people do their work to get a good package together.

    • Todfod (@todfod) said on 28th December 2010, 8:14

      Im actually pleased with the 107% rule, as it will the backmarkers into taking the sport more seriously. Teams such as HRT do not belong in the sport, and if they cant up their game enough to start races, then its good riddance.

      Team orders always existed, and now I’m glad that all the teams can be open about it instead of disguising it and fooling viewers.

      I’m not a fan of how the adjustable rear wings are going to be used. Its sounds too video gamish to me.

      2013 doesn’t sound too exciting either, and makes me question whether there will ever be any stability in car design in F1.

      So.. in the end I voted on no opinion.

    • Ben Curly (@ben-curly) said on 28th December 2010, 11:08

      Lifting the ban on team orders: somewhat good. The ban was never respected by the teams. And let’s face it, team orders will remain unpopular, so the teams will try to limit them anyway, purely for PR reasons.

      Reintroduction of 107% rule: bad. Without in-season testing the teams initially falling outside of 107% will not have the means to improve. And I don’t think that alienating the sport even more is a good move.

      Stewards have new powers to punish drivers: good. I think that the new penalty options allow for more flexibility.

      Cars will have adjustable rear wings: bad. I don’t like the principle of giving one driver a temporary advantage over another. I’d like it to be about skill. Plus, I don’t like the resources to be wasted on yet another aerodynamic gadget with no use in real life. In my opinion the cars should be as simple aerodynamically as possible. Instead FIA should unlock the engine development with only one regulation: the amount of fuel (or as some people suggested – amount of energy) allowed for the race. That would bring some innovative ideas, transferrable to road cars. And if you worry about the costs, just introduce the budget cap already.

      Overall: this time I disapprove. I think these changes for the most part fail to address the core issues with F1.

      • dyslexicbunny (@dyslexicbunny) said on 28th December 2010, 18:08

        I’m with you Ben.

        Team orders: I just don’t like the lying aspect and not having to race your teammate.

        107% rule: While I understand the original premise of the rule, I think this also causes problems with a lack of testing. Therefore if you don’t get to race, you should be allowed either to do as much testing until the next race and/or your drivers should get extra practice time on that circuit. My proposal could have problems as top tier teams could sandbag to use the test time but I highly doubt that they would want to.

        Stewards: whatever

        Rear wings: Stupid. Let’s also develop red/green/blue shells for teams.

        Engine rules: I approve but I think it’s silly to keep it at 4 cyl forever. I’d like more tech to carry over to road cars though.

        Here’s what I would do if I was in charge. Define the basic rules for cars (dimension limits, weight limits, fuel cap, things disallowed, etc). Then establish a budget cap. You are free to spend your resources on whatever you will – aero, engine, materials, manufacturing. Race.

  5. George (@george) said on 28th December 2010, 1:24

    I’ve gone from approve to no opinion, not a big fan of next year’s rule changes but I like the sound of the 2013 designs.

  6. wasiF1 (@wasif1) said on 28th December 2010, 1:58

    I approved only will it be paid if the new engine rule from 2013 help some engine manufacturer to come in F1.

  7. Felipe Bomeny (@portugoose) said on 28th December 2010, 5:08

    Looking forward to 2013, so it’s a ‘yes’ from me. The new regs will attract more manufacturers, which ks good for the sport.

  8. GeeMac (@geemac) said on 28th December 2010, 7:06

    Well its a mixed bag from me… so its no opinion I guess. I agree with the ban on team orders simply because it will end the hypocrisy that the teams have been getting away with for years. I don’t agree with the 107% rule being reintroduced simply because the sport neds a steady flow of new teams, who is even going to bother turning up if they won’t have a chance of racing on Sunday? I really approve of the improvement in the standard of stewarding, because we all win when stewards make sensible decisions. I don’t approve of adjustable rear wings…they just seems like a gimmick which will take some of the skill out of overtaking.

    Finally, I don’t approve of the new engine rules. I’ve been up in the air about this one for a while, and I’ve now decided that part of the appeal of F1 has always been the best drivers in the world driving the most technologically advanced cars with the biggest and most powerful engines. Part of the appeal of the original turbo era was watching drivers wrestle cars that produced 1500bhp, and this isn’t what is coming back in 2013. I don’t want to watch F1 cars with 1.6 litre turbo charged engines “because they are similar to the ones in road cars” or because “I can see the similarites between my car and F1 cars” or because the car companies get to go on some silly marketing exercise. I want F1 cars to have mad, huge engines that produce atomic power. F1 has to be the pinnacle of motorsport, and having cars with big scary powerful engines is part of what makes the sport what it is.

  9. MahavirShah (@mahavirshah) said on 28th December 2010, 7:36

    Actually I dont think one can judge whether the 2013 rules will improve the sport or not. I feel a lot of the overtaking is decided by the tracks built these days. The 107% rule should ideally serve to bring cars up to speed and not see them lapped 3-4 times a race. Most of the times the FIA have sought to decrease downforce it seems teams have found better ways to increase it to higher levels. Maybe they will find a a way to subvert ARW’s also.

  10. Kieran said on 28th December 2010, 7:46

    With the 1.6l engines, isnt anyone concerned its going to be like how we miss the v10′s sound now… were going to end up missing the sounds of the v8′s, and be stuck with an even worse sound? Think that makes sense… I understand the need to be relevant, and how technology advances but… this is f1, not one a make series or formula 3…

  11. Dan Thorn (@dan-thorn) said on 28th December 2010, 8:23

    I think the rule changes for 2013 and for next year are fantastic so I have to vote approve.

  12. Chris (@chris) said on 28th December 2010, 9:10

    For me the worst point is that he was at the origin of the team orders ban and now he gives a big help to ferrari by removing that ban

    Years later he is just up the hill and he immediately sustain them for their worst side in the sport
    He managed also them not to be punished after Hockenheim farce…

    In just two acts he became what he has always been… remember his whole motorsport implication… You always find him in dark sides of the force

    Nothing has changed here really

    Chris

    • Right, because nobody used team orders while the ban was in place?

      First you accused Ferrari of flouting the team orders ban while others adhered – and then you say it’s an advantage to Ferrari to let the other teams use it as well?

      What nonsense.

      • Chris (@chris) said on 28th December 2010, 19:29

        Nobody tells you the other teams will make use of the team order ban lift…

        Just look at Red Bull and Mc Laren : they hate using them and as for McLaren you can say they have lost many championships because of not willing use of team orders…

        You cannot say the same for ferrari since they won so many times with team orders and if not with team orders just by contracting poor pilots with Schu, to be sure they will have no team orders to give since the moment the second pilot is less able and less agressive

        Keep that in your mind

        Chris

        • David-A (@david-a) said on 28th December 2010, 19:46

          The only time when Ferrari won thanks to any kind of team order was Brazil 2007. Even then, Raikkonen simply leapfrogged him in the pitstops, plus Massa came out before the race to insist that he would help Raikkonen, meaning that it wasn’t really a team order at all. In all other cases team orders did not have any effect on the championship standing.

        • David-A (@david-a) said on 28th December 2010, 19:49

          Plus Barrichello isn’t a poor driver, and your point about “they will have no team orders to give since the moment the second pilot is less able and less agressive” is nonsense, since it’s rare for a team to sign 2 drivers with an equally strong reputation.

  13. verstappen (@verstappen) said on 28th December 2010, 9:12

    D I S A P P R O V E

    engines
    The new rules are either unnecessary or completely missing the point. Either you agree that you have this sport whithout all too much road car relevance, or you make it the real technical pinnacle of motorsport again. And that means much more freedom then the 2013 rules.

    Now we end up with this half measured cost increasing set of rules, which seem just be created luring volkswagen and the japanse again into the sport. I mean: the only road relevance is that F1 copies road cars instead of the other way around.

    We’ve read all kinds of possible solutions here on this site, like unlimited Kers, or other recovery systems, or freedom of engine type but a limited amounty of (any) fuel , etc.
    Jean should be reading these comments.

    Stewarding
    Instead of only cleaning up after the season, Jean should’ve stepped in earlier, explaining the rules and the possibilities for applying them.

    I don’t remember the exact article(s), but after Monaco I read (studied) them and found that there were already provisions within the rules to distract any amount of seconds, making it effectively possible to switch places between Schumacher and Alonso.

    So there really is nothing new in the rulebook and the art of stewarding is not in the rules, it’s in the policing of the rules. And in making that clear to the stewards, Jean failed.

    adjustable wings
    This one I have to see first. It seems artificial at first glance, however since the effect of dirty air is so big, I think it can be fair to allow the passing driver to negate this effect. So here I’m neutral.

    overall
    Overall that leads to disapprove and for me it has been all year. At first he had one seemingly positive: being more in the background then Max Mosley, but now I’m not sure about that anymore. I think he should make more of a stand about the major things in F1.

    Beat that drum Jean, make yourself heard and feared!

  14. Osvaldas31 (@osvaldas31) said on 28th December 2010, 10:10

    For the first time I disaprove, because of the rule, which lifts the ban of team orders.

  15. DanielPT said on 28th December 2010, 10:23

    I cannot vote Keith. All the buttons appear disabled to me. Browser: MIE8.

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.