In today’s round-up: Bahrain’s Crown Prince says they hope to hold their race in 2011.
Links
Top F1 links from the past 24 hours:
Bahrain working on Formula One race date (The National)
Crown Prince of Bahrain Sheikh Salman bin Isa al Khalifa: “We are in constant contact with concerned authorities to reschedule the Bahrain Grand Prix 2011. Now that security has prevailed and normal life has returned to Bahrain, thanks to the wise leadership, we are stepping up contacts to host the race anew.”
“The same stewards from Malaysia will oversee the race in China: Emanuele Pirro, Garry Connelly and Vincenzo Spano.”
Via the F1 Fanatic live Twitter app
Lewis eclipses Jim Clark’s team loyalty benchmark (McLaren)
I predict more confusion in the comments…
F1 big picture – Petrov’s damaged tyre (BBC)
“With Petrov’s left foot pressed hard on the brake pedal, the car went into a wild pirouette – and the slick tyre’s bias-ply material was exposed for all to see.”
Systems overdrive (MotorSport)
“Some suggest that these systems are no different from adjustable boost in the turbo era, whereby you could temporarily award yourself some extra horsepower (at the same time knowing that it was eating into your restricted fuel allowance for the race). But that argument is hardly valid – if a following driver whopped up his boost to pass you, there was nothing to stop you doing the same to defend your position.”
Follow F1 news as it breaks using the F1 Fanatic live Twitter app.
Comment of the day
Kowalsky was at the Spanish Grand Prix 25 years ago yesterday to see one of the closest race finishes of all time:
I was there. And the thing I remember vividly is the qualifying lap Senna did.
I was in the fast right hander behind the pits. Those were the years of the qualifying tyres, and the 1000bhp engines. And it was amazing to watch the Brazilian giving it everything. That bend, even if not as famous as others in the calender, was one of the best Ii have ever seen. A few years later Martin Donnelly had a huge accident there.
After the race I got into the paddock, and Bob Dance, Lotus chief mechanic, gave me a Nacional cap that was on top of a tool box. Not a bad weekend at all.
Kowalsky
From the forum
Narboza22 asks about F1 drivers wearing jewellery.
Site updates
If you had experienced the page loading problem before please get in touch by email and let me know whether you have noticed any improvements in how the site is loading over the last 24 hours. Please include details of which browser/s you’ve tried and where you’re trying to access the site from.
Happy birthday!
Happy birthday to cmcgato!
On this day in F1
On this day in 1952 Alberto Ascari gave the world a taste of what was to come in the forthcoming season by winning the non-championship Pau Grand Prix by three laps in his Ferrari 500.
He went on to win six of that year’s eight championship rounds in the car, plus another five the following year, giving him back-to-back crowns.
He also set the record for the most consecutive world championship race wins – nine – as he did not enter the 1953 Indianapolis 500.
snowman
14th April 2011, 0:12
So one of the stupidest penalty’s ever is rewarded by keeping the same stewards for the next race, thats just great, maybe next time they can give a ridiculous penalty then make it more ridiculous by having it meaningless for one driver and not for other, no wait they have already done that.
Adrian J (@adrian-j)
14th April 2011, 0:19
As far as I can see only 1 of them has ever driven in F1 and he scored a grand total of 3 points in a 3 year career…
…hardly someone who’s going to have the best idea of what it’s like racing at the sharp end.
What happened to the seasoned F1 drivers like Herbert et al??
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
14th April 2011, 5:54
What would that be then?
Ben N
14th April 2011, 9:06
I’m not sure which penalty ‘snowman’ is referring to, but I’d like to think he’s talking about the Alonso penalty, which frustrated me. He was only trying to make an overtake and got it fractionally wrong… he didn’t cause a collision, racing caused the collision and these things happen. He penalised himself by having to pit and Hamilton wasn’t terminally damaged…
Fixy (@)
14th April 2011, 13:51
I think it’s more Hamilton’s one, although I’m not sure why as his was (partially) deserved.
McLarenFanJamm
14th April 2011, 9:07
I believe he is referring to Hamilton’s penalty for weaving.
For the record, I don’t think either driver should have been penalised but maybe that’s why I’m not a steward.
Lee
14th April 2011, 9:23
Lewis’s penalty although a tad harsh was justifiable as he did move a lot more than is allowed, and i believe Keith posted a couple of videos on here showing that. I think a lot of people are annoyed with it not because it was given but because it is given as a penalty so rarely, fans want consistency with the handing out of penalties.
snowman
14th April 2011, 10:46
Was talking about the Alonso Hamilton penalty’s. Why I think it was uncalled for is
1/ Even if it was called for why not do it before race is over, they have all the footage available without having to question the drivers.
2/ Even if was called for why slap one driver with a meaningless penalty, Alonso’s didn’t change his position, either penalize or don’t.
3/ Never seen the Hamilton weaving footage so maybe he did but why penalize Alonso even if it was a meaningless one as he already paid the price by having to pit again.
It just seems these steward’s sometimes want to get involved when theres no call to.
Just irritates me when one of the highlights of the race is slapped with a overly harsh penalty afterwards!! like Schumi passing Alonso Monaco last year or Hamilton and Kimi think spa couple years ago.
mateuss (@mateuss)
14th April 2011, 10:23
There were a number of unreasonable penalties in Sepang, lets just hope that their menstruation will have past and they will be in a better mood and not interfere with the racing.
Gerry
14th April 2011, 13:26
So watch out Hamilton, they will be looking out for you again in China!!!
ed24f1 (@ed24f1)
14th April 2011, 14:00
These appointments would have been locked in before Malaysia.
bananarama (@bananarama)
14th April 2011, 0:17
A modern day adjustable turbo boost would probably be something like KERS with less restrictions. Maybe a total amount of power to use during the race, not per lap would be pretty similar, but still not quite the same. I like the point that it was a definitive advantage, but it had to be managed because it had its drawbacks. The systems of today have practically no real downside. But then, maybe with time the effect of KERS on the rear wheels will become more obvious and the drivers have to manage enough systems in the car as it is, more micro management would make things even more complicated.
Looking forward to possible conspiracy theories concerning the stewards :-P
BasCB (@bascb)
14th April 2011, 7:42
I think KERS is pretty much the same in that it has a limited capacity by the size of the batteries. Only contrived is that 6+ seconds limit on it per lap.
Downside is cooling, tyre wear and brake balance.
But actually KERS would be better employed just to improve traction out of corners (at low revs electrical engine is perfect to counter the combustion engines weakness) instead of having it as a boost button. That would make it a genuine fuel saving/performance enhancing device.
Maybe then have the possibility to use it as boost, but that will hurt performance in the rest of the lap (as it uses power from the batteries).
Robyn
14th April 2011, 0:31
Here’s something else Bahrain was in the news for this week:
“Bahrain unrest: Torture fears as activists die in jail”
“Security has prevailed and normal life has returned”? Hmm…
bananarama (@bananarama)
14th April 2011, 1:00
“Torture” is normal and a “jail” is a form of security, so where is your problem? I’ll return for more info after instructing some children on how to use the weapons …
I think none of us can really say whats true and what isn’t.
I know a couple who lived in Bahrain for 3 years who told me it was a wonderful place to live, that it was very open and modern and they never ever felt unsafe, that the politics appeared to be very socially conscious, quite a bit of the oil money was flowing back to the people. Then again you hear that the riots were supported and financed by Iran to some extent. If looked at it from this points of view, one would think this is all madness.
On the other hand, I know nothing about how Shiites may have been disadvantaged in the past and how much this conflict has destroyed the relationship between them and the Sunnis. That last part is the only thing we can take as a ground for making a decision: if its safe enough to go there without new conflicts breaking out or not. Everything else they have to work out by themselves. F1 is a sport and a business, not a place to make politics or enforce human rights (by that standard what are we doing in Shanghai this week?!).
Mark Hitchcock (@mark-hitchcock)
14th April 2011, 1:06
Are you serious?
Since when is torture normal?
Ignoring human rights abuses of course…
AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner)
14th April 2011, 7:55
Torture is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Hell, even in the UK it’s bound to happen. A fact of normal life.
Ned Flanders (@ned-flanders)
14th April 2011, 9:17
I dunno about that. The idea of people being tortured makes my skin crawl a bit. If it happens in the UK it’ll be pretty rare
Maciek
14th April 2011, 11:22
Really? Happens to you every day, does it? How is it a fact of normal life exactly?
I don’t understand why since the beginning of this debate, Bahrain’s having a race or not seems to bring out all kinds odf stuff like that rubber bullets are an okay measure of crowd control, that they didn’t really truly mean to kill protesters and now apparently torture is normal… boggles my mind, hurts my brain, makes me want to spit fire. I don’t get it.
RandomChimp (@randomchimp)
14th April 2011, 12:05
Torture is normal and bound to happen in the UK?!
So burning and lashing are quite normal and accepted methods of getting info out of political prisoners held by British police, are they?
Mark Hitchcock (@mark-hitchcock)
14th April 2011, 13:11
It may be one of the oldest tricks in the book, and yes unfortunately the UK, US etc are complicit in torture. But it’s not accepted, it’s not supported and it’s not a fact of life.
Did we see people being tortured and killed after the recent protests in London? No. And if torture or killings were part of normal life then the police here would arguably have more justification than those in Bahrain considering that there were people in the London protests actively seeking violent confrontations.
Part of the reason there are these uprisings in the Middle East is because police brutality, political corruption and human rights abuses are NOT acceptable by the population of the countries involved. They want to change their regimes peacefully but are being violently suppressed by corrupt police forces.
None of it is justified or acceptable and it makes me sick that there are people out there who really think torturing someone for wanting to have a better life is actually ok.
AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner)
14th April 2011, 13:22
Calm down folks.
No, i’ve never been tortured not do I plan on it.
I wasn’t saying it was acceptable. It’s pretty disgraceful.
But F1 isn’y going to change that so there’s no need for us to get too concerned about it here. There are other avenues for that.
Mark Hitchcock (@mark-hitchcock)
14th April 2011, 13:34
F1 won’t change it. But F1 will be supporting the use of such techniques to suppress dissent if it goes back to Bahrain.
If Khalifa says: “Now that security has prevailed and normal life has returned to Bahrain, thanks to the wise leadership” and Bernie/F1 says “oh yeah, that was wise leadership and normal life has resumed, lets go back.” They are accepting that torturing and killing your own citizens to stay in power is wise leadership, and that oppression is an acceptable way for people to live their normal lives.
Robyn
14th April 2011, 1:23
On the one hand, I wouldn’t necessarily argue that F1, amoral as it obviously is, should take some kind of activist role. On the other hand, though, it’s disturbing to think of the extra incentive that holding the grand prix might give the Bahrain government to crush any and all dissent as thoroughly as possible, by whatever means necessary. I kind of doubt that that pressure added to the already volatile situation would help anyone in the end.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
14th April 2011, 1:39
Sorry, but Formula 1 is not a political tool. If the race is to be cancelled in Bahrain, it should be cancelled because it is not safe for the teams and drivers to visit, and not because someone wants to make a political statement. Political displays are banned in the Olympic Games – like the guys who made the “Black Power” salute on the podium and were promptly stripped of their medals – and in other sports, so why should Formula 1 be any different?
Icthyes (@icthyes)
14th April 2011, 2:08
Turkey was fined for having an official from the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” officially announced as such in the podium proceedings, so there is precedence for what you’re saying, and I agree. I don’t see people throwing out their Chinese kitchen equipment because of the human rights abuses.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
14th April 2011, 3:24
Precisely. I’ve never understood the whole “Formula 1 should not go to countries with human rights violations”, largely because I think it’s mostly just people trying to create a loophole to get out of going to places they feel the sport has no business being.
This was the major cause for contention on the blog back when the protests first started. Some of the things I said were incredibly unpopular, but now that the bulk of it is over and we’re less-invested in the discussion, I think I can clarify what I meant.
I never actually said that the race should go ahead regardless of the political situation as a lot of people seemed to think I did. I simply said that the race should not be used as a political tool by either side, and that there were more-appropriate ways of doing something about Bahrain than using the race. If one race were to be used for political purposes, then all would.
Take Australia, for example. The race receives funding from the Liberal state government, which is an extension of the Liberal federal opposition and generally supportive of them. Right now, the Liberal opposition is trying to stop the federal Labor government from introducing a carbon tax that will cost Australian households up to $900 per year. However, the Liberals have no environmental policy of their own, and have shot down every proposition the government has come up with because parliament is quite evenly split between both parties. Indeed, they leaked that $900 figure before the government had been able to work in tax breaks and the like. There is a certain perception that the Liberals will do or say anything to get themselves into power (I personally believe that the worst-run labor government will always be better than the best-run liberal government). So, if the organisers of the Australian Grand Prix accept money from the state Liberal government, that is an endorsement of the Liberal party. But does everyone in the sport agree with their politics? Should the sport support a political party doing everything it can to get into power simply so that they can say they are in power?
Or, as another example, the United States Grand Prix (let’s assume they are gettign government support for the sake of the argument). We all know Barack Obama wants to push through health care reform. Does everyone in the sport agree with what he wants to do? Or in Japan; there have been criticisms of the way Tokyo handled the Fukushima-Daichi disaster; should Formula 1 endorse them?
The sport is wracked by its own internal politics enough that it doesn’t need to go meddling in the affairs of others. It needs to remain as apolitical as possible. So why should it go and get involved in Bahraini politics and not in others? Carbon taxes and health care reforms and disaster relief might not be as pressing issues as anti-government protests, but each of those issues is highly significant to the country it affects, even if the eyes of the world are not focused on them.
Now for the part that is actually controversial: I believe a lot of people wanted to boycott Bahrain simply so that they could say they had done something and sleep well at night. But not many people actually cared about Bahrain at all. Once the race was cancelled, all discussion of it stopped. The protests didn’t, and they arguably got worse when there were claims that nerve agents were used on protestors (it was actually tear gas used in closed confines; tear gas works by forcing people to disperse, but if used indoors or in an area with little access – forcing people to take longer to get out of the affected area – the effects are greater and can lead to hospitalisations). If people wanted to do something about Bahrain, they should do something more than get angry about it on an internet blog and then claim they’d done something.
Oliver
14th April 2011, 4:27
Makes you wonder why the Western world, the UN isn’t doing anything to protect the citizens from the government. I believe the Bahraini situation to be far worse than the Libyan. But Libya was going to expose some European governments and of course also offer some free oil. At the end of the day, hypocricy didn’t just start today and it has plenty of life lft in it yet.
PeriSoft
14th April 2011, 4:53
I’ve never understood the whole “Formula 1 should not go to countries with human rights violations”, largely because I think it’s mostly just people trying to create a loophole to get out of going to places they feel the sport has no business being.
That’s all well and good, PM, but there has to be a breaking point somewhere. Presumably one wouldn’t hold a grand prix in North Korea, or the Sudan, or Myanmar, or would have in Ivory Coast while Laurent Gbagbo was slicing unarmed women in half with heavy caliber machine guns.
There’s some point where you just can’t ignore it any more, political statement or not.
There’s a point where going becomes more of a political statement than not going.
What that tipping point should bem and who decides what that point is in reality, is another issue. But for me, personally, gunning down citizens in the street, preventing them from getting medical care, and then killing and attacking doctors and patients in the hospital crosses that line.
China does indeed have its share of human rights violations. But they are not essential to the society; they are not necessarily required and could be changed without a wholesale revolution. They at least exist within a basic structure of government. In China, political speech is muzzled and those who speak up are jailed.
In Bahrain, clearly the situation is genuinely different; the government is completely ignoring any pretense of rule of law. Instead of having oppressive rules and skewed courts, it has done away with rules and courts entirely. This is a fundamentally different situation.
China, like it or not, is a world power, and the more it’s exposed to the world, the harder it will be for the government to prevent change. Refusing to hold a race there would, as I wrote above, be more of a political statement than going.
Being a partner of Bahrain, however, not only makes a change in regime less likely, but is a far more inflammatory statement. A race in China says, you are inexorably part of the world stage and ignoring you is impossible. There are plenty of other events there; for F1 to stand alone would surely involve it more than its participation.
A race in Bahrain, though, would tell the world: Wipe up the blood, crush the spirits of the people, and sweep away their symbols, and a few months later, as with ServPro, it’s ‘like it never even happened’. That’s not only unconscionable but an active reversal of previous policy – essentially, an endorsement of the monarchy’s response.
That is a far louder political statement than a silent continuation of a decision which has already been discussed in the press and disappeared.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
14th April 2011, 5:19
I’m sorry, but I completely disagree. The sport should remain apolitical. If things are so bad that having a race there would be such an ethical dilemma, then the country is clearly at a point where the safety of drivers and teams is at risk should they go. The race should not be cancelled for political purposes, because, as I said, all races then become politically motivated, if not as extreme as the case of Bahrain.
The only times a race should be cancelled are: a) the safety of teams and drivers are at stake, b) the circuit fails homologation, and c) extreme conditions (anything from snow to a recent earthquake) make racing there impractical. If the political situation is so poor that it would be a moral outrage to go, then one of the above criteria has clearly already been fulfilled.
Other sports can remain free of politics, so I don’t see why Formula 1 should be obligated to interfere with the situation in Bahrain. The race was cancelled, and cancelled on the grounds of safety – and that’s the way it should have been. The Powers That Be came out and said “We’re not going to Bahrain because we feel it is not safe for us to do so”, not “We’re not going to Bahrain because we disagree with the way the country is run”. Sports events have no business interfering with politics (unless the sport actually is the political issue, as it is in Melbourne right now). Especially since making a political statement might clash with the politics of an individual. Cancel the race on the grounds of safety and let the individual make up their own mind about the matter instead of openly making a political statement that might clash with a person’s values.
Of all the subjects out there, this is one that I inherently believe in: a person’s politics are just as personal as their faith. It’s not something that you’ll easily talk me around, because while i see your point of view, I also don’t think it has much weight. Formula 1 has no business getting political. That can have serious consequences later on. The sport should just be Switzerland about it all.
BasCB (@bascb)
14th April 2011, 7:24
I pretty much agree with what PeriSoft says here.
Going ahead with the GP turns into a political statement of agreement with the government crack down on protestors, doctors, human rights activists, critical news papers, and just shiite citizens speaking up.
It tells the world, that as long as your crack down works to control the safety situation for a while, F1 will let itself be used to show how good you are.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
14th April 2011, 8:17
But I never said that the Grand Prix should have gone ahead – only that if it were to be cancelled, then it should not be cancelled for political reasons. Bahrain was in no condition to host a race, despite our hopes of a quick resolution. When the time came to pull the plug on the race, it should have been pulled because the violence made the country unsafe for drivers and teams, not because Formula 1 wanted to make a political statement about the Bahraini government.
BasCB (@bascb)
14th April 2011, 8:35
I do feel you changed your stance a bit from those early fanatical defence onward (not critisizing that in any way, its your feelings).
The main difference between what you say now and what I see in Bahrain, is that the crackdown is far from over, just all critical papers and bloggers in Bahrain have been barred from posting and commenting on it.
Therefore, letting the GP go on rewards their intolerable move on their own people, making it a political statement by default.
Ned Flanders (@ned-flanders)
14th April 2011, 9:25
I could go into a huge rant about this, but I cannae be bothered, so let me just say I think PeriSoft speaks a lot of sense. Especially the bit about there needing to be a cut off point.
I can only speak for myself and a few other site regulars like BasCB, but I can say that’s not true
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
14th April 2011, 10:12
Nope, hasn’t changed. Most of my “fanatical defence” was constructed by people who didn’t bother to read all the way to the end of my posts before replying, and by people who replied to those replies.
I’ve always maintained that the race should be apolitical. If ever I defended the government in Manama, it was because people were psoting things that were brazenly untrue – like claiming that the use tear gas (an accepted riot-control tactic worldwide) was the same as using sarin or VX. Which it is not.
I meant from most people. Even among the regulars, discussion dovetailed. But everyone stopped talking about it before the violence actuall stopped.
Ads21
14th April 2011, 11:29
PM’s “sport must be apolitical argument” is frankly naive. I can understand what you’re trying to say but the reason countries like Bahrain and UAE saught to have grands prix was precisely because of the international prestige it would give them. A grand prix is therefore an inherently political political event. The same goes for the Olympics the World Cup and other such sporting events.
Having said that I think its completely unrealistic to refuse to go to countries with poor human rights records, we’re not going to drop China off the calender despite its renewed crackdown on dissidents this year, so we have to have a different measure of when to refuse to go to a country for a grand prix.
PM was right that the main measure has to be either when there is a serious threat to teams/drivers from political violence. But it also take into account when there is such political violence and/or repression in the country that going ahead with a race would do severe damage to the reputation of F1 as with South Africa in the 1980s or Bahrain this year.
Chippie
14th April 2011, 12:13
That stems into the question as to whether acknowledging countries such as South Africa or Bahrain helps the oppressed. I, for one believe that in some small way, it helped the South African people, at a time when nearly all other sporting events were giving the country a wide berth.
I do agree with PM here, if the entire world fell into the hands of various dictators and actively oppressive regimes then I would still want F1. I watch sport to have fun and escape from everyday life.
BasCB (@bascb)
14th April 2011, 7:59
Argueably, supporting things like this by not objecting a political statement as well:
Going to a country where large part of the people feel like this
should not even be considered (from a BBC article of last week)
This is an outright alarming state of matters. Cracking down on ethnic groups will only make more likely to turn to violence as a last resort as well in the future!
Maciek
14th April 2011, 11:35
This is a debate based on false assertions – by going to countries whose governments repress their populations, Formula 1 is precisely a political tool, one which those governments use to gain legitimacy on the international stage.
infy (@infy)
14th April 2011, 12:47
We should boycott the English and American F1 races because they tortured rebels (aka terrorist suspects) at guantanamo bay and murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians during their invasion of Afgan and Iraq.
Honestly do you guys suffer from memory loss or do you purposefully try to maintain high levels of double standards?
I guess its easy to be an activist as long as it suits you. But the second your own country is the one doing the harm, you all act as if its not happening.
Maciek
14th April 2011, 13:15
Well, for one thing, how do you know which country is mine? Second – I’ve said it before – but it bears saying again since this debate is shot through with statements that sound logical, but aren’t – neither the British, nor American governments sponsor the GPs in question, but the Bahrain and China GPs are pet projects of their respective governments; that is why their actions have ethical implications for F1 fans who can be bothered to see further than the tip of their nose.
Mark Hitchcock (@mark-hitchcock)
14th April 2011, 13:21
infy, what makes you think the people complaining about going to Bahrain weren’t also very much opposed to those wars and the way those governments acted/are acting regarding the way they treat terror suspects?
Don’t accuse people of double standards when you don’t know what their standards are.
matt90
14th April 2011, 13:40
No, it isn’t exactly pleasant, but you hardly compare it to slaughtering your own citizens.
infy (@infy)
14th April 2011, 13:52
@ Maciek: I didnt mean to reply to your post specificity. I just hit the last reply button in the convo.
@ Mark: I’ve never once seen anyone mention boycotting the English or American races. Actions speak stronger than words.
@ Matt: Killing the citizens of another county is worse than killing your own citizens because at the end of the day no one is going to take the military to court, where as if your government kills its own citizens, the families of the dead can take it to court. The law is the law and once all the fighting has finished, the inquiries begin.
Maciek
14th April 2011, 15:21
That’s not quite how dictatorships work.
matt90
14th April 2011, 21:52
Yep, that’s why the people love/d Gadaffi, Sadam, the Taliban etc. cos they offer/ed compensation to every victim of their opressive dictarships.
Plus the other issue is that Britain and the US don’t have massively contentious and dispicable human rights violations happening in their capitals, where many tourists going to a race will pass through, thus risking their lives.
matt90
14th April 2011, 22:04
Also the British government does not fund the British grand prix so it can be used as a marketing tool purely to raise the country’s profile, compared to places like Bahrain. If a country uses it’s race to raise its profile then it should not be suprised if the appropriateness of hosting a race there is questioned.
silencer (@silencer)
14th April 2011, 1:38
I don’t think F1 should go to Bahrain this year
there’s no need to go there just to race for the sake one sheikh
the people of Bahrain don’t need F1 right now
and it’s a mistake if bernie still insist of having a race there this year
PeriSoft
14th April 2011, 1:39
Ahh – the Bahrani people have continued to be shot and beaten, have been blocked from entering the hospital afterword, and if they DID get in, there were police inside beating doctors and shooting patients.
Well, that got the ol’ security situation under control. And since the government has blown up their own monument to make sure that the protester know their place (and to make sure that tourists aren’t reminded of any discomforting thoughts), hey, it’s all good!
The headlines have receded, the blood has dried, the symbols of revolution have been erased – bring in F1 and let the party begin!
BasCB (@bascb)
14th April 2011, 7:25
Very sadly so, its a case of all means used, don’t care for the cost.
Ned Flanders (@ned-flanders)
14th April 2011, 9:28
If Bahrain gets its GP back it’ll be a sad day for F1. I don’t see it happening though- not in the short term at least- because surely Ecclestone and the teams will be aware of the damage it’d cause to F1’s reputation
BasCB (@bascb)
14th April 2011, 11:35
I guess they will be finding quite a load of excused not to go (the Brazillians not being able to postpone, travel dificulties after India, …).
We will critisize them for their reluctance to say out front they do not want to go, but better that than not finding those exuces.
wasiF1 (@wasif1)
14th April 2011, 2:39
I am not a big fan of this current steward panel.
Oliver
14th April 2011, 3:30
Why just this Stewards? F1 is already a Police State. It makes no difference if they have to dig up a dinosaur to hand out the verdict. Justice is always selective when the system is so designed.
BasCB (@bascb)
14th April 2011, 7:26
I would really hope the FIA started delivering on its promise of actually explaining verdicts. Not many people were comfortable with those penalties handed out.
On the positive side, at least it brings some consistency in the desicion making.
bosyber
14th April 2011, 8:06
But they did explain them. They just failed to explain why (for the weaving) only this one deserved a penalty, and for Alonso, why his mistake was deserving of a penalty – ie. their explanations are lacking in specificity and reasoning.
I did just yesterday hear Windsor say he thought it was too much a mistake to hit an opponent from behind, and that the driver behind should at all costs avoid hitting. I don’t know if he thought Alonso thus had to get a penalty or not.
Not sure either how that translates to incident last year like Webber hitting Ham in Singapore, Ham on Massa in Monza, or Alonso on Button in Monza, or even Webber going over Kovalainen; or Vettel on Button in Spa and Bar on Alo in Spa, and the difference in penalties for them. I do suppose that getting yourrself stranded might be seen as a bit of a penalty in itself and reduce extra penalties a bit.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
14th April 2011, 8:14
When Webber hit Hamilton last year, it was at relatively low speed and it was a side impact.
When Alonso hit Hamilton, it was from behind and at speed – very similar to Mark Webber’s backflip in Valencia last yaer.
BasCB (@bascb)
14th April 2011, 8:40
LOL, sure they explained. Put up the rule that was involved and stated the infringement.
But no where did the FIA publish based on what facts and with what reasoning were these penalties chosen, and it did not explain what made the difference between Lewis last year and now. Nor did they explain why they investigated the issue for Hamilton and why Whiting changed his mind about the Alonso-Hamilton incident to investigate it.
Instead we refer to the Windsors, Sawards, Nobles, Collantines etc. and random internet forums of the world to interpret what might have been the reasoning.
Just imagine courts working like that? Would be sure ground for an appeal.
BasCB (@bascb)
14th April 2011, 7:43
Can’t say I see you often on here, but you might be just reading, so here goes: Happy birthday to cmcgato!
AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner)
14th April 2011, 8:00
Let the UN sort Bahrain’s problems. I find it so tragic when sport is used as a political tool, it’s embarrassing.
Dan Thorn (@dan-thorn)
14th April 2011, 8:08
Not to mention that fact that using too much boost for too long ate into your (then limited) fuel supply and could hinder you later on…
BasCB (@bascb)
14th April 2011, 8:43
Yeah, I think that just limiting total battery capacity of KERS should be enough.
In hybrid cars things like engery recuperation are used to limit fuel use by boosting at low revs. If they would do something like that in F1 as well, but allow the driver to use part of the energy for a boost, this would make him have less to limit fuel use and therefore make it more of a choice for a quick boost limiting power later in the lap and in the race.
Bebilou
14th April 2011, 8:43
Appart from political problems there, Bahrain is a boring track. Dropping it would be a very good thing for the sport.
slr
14th April 2011, 8:57
Bahrain being “boring” should not and never will be a reason to drop race. I find it pretty insensitive of people who just say “drop Bahrain because it’s boring”.
Ned Flanders (@ned-flanders)
14th April 2011, 9:28
Agreed
Icthyes (@icthyes)
14th April 2011, 10:42
Why is it insensitive? If it’s not a good race, it shouldn’t be on the calendar. Only that Bahrain is hardly a lot worse than many others.
Can you explain your reasoning how it’s insensitive?
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
14th April 2011, 12:16
It’s insensitive if you use the political violence as a pretext for dropping it when you’re really getting rid of it because it’s boring.
Icthyes (@icthyes)
14th April 2011, 12:42
That’s not what he’s(?) saying though is it? He’s saying even if it was all hunky-dory, it shouldn’t be on anyway. Unless I’ve misread. But if so, he didn’t suggest that the violence was a good reason to get rid of a boring track; he implied it was a further reason.
In any case, slr’s point was that saying it was boring was insensitive, not what you’re saying.
Mark Hitchcock (@mark-hitchcock)
14th April 2011, 13:27
Icthyes, PM seems to have got it into his head that anyone opposing the Bahrain grand prix because of the political situation is actually opposing it because they don’t like the track or the country.
slr
14th April 2011, 14:54
I just got the feeling that he was using the problems in Bahrain to justify getting rid of a race, that he doesn’t like because he feels that it’s boring. Anyway it’s just how I see it, if you disagree then fine.
Ned Flanders (@ned-flanders)
14th April 2011, 16:12
I’m not a huge fan of the track, but it could be 10 times better than Spa and I’d still want to see the back of it
TheVillainF1 (@thevillainf1)
14th April 2011, 12:13
it would sicken me if F1 went to Bahrain this year (or indeed untill all issues are sorted out peacefully). The only reason the GP could be held this year is because the regime brutally supressed its people. F1 should stay out of politics, but that doesn’t mean it needs to endorse brutal regimes either. Contrary to what the FIA seems to think, going there would send just as much a political message as not going.
Bebilou
14th April 2011, 13:49
Why not droping Bahrain because it’s a boring circuit ?
We’re talking about sport: F1 should have the best drivers, the best cars, but also the best tracks in the world.
We should have tracks like Spa, Suzuka, or Silverstone. I dream of having Road America, Potero de los Funes or Brands Hatch for example.
Tracks like Bahrein or Abu Dhabi are not interesting for the sport: chicanes, straights, hairpins and slow corners. Wow, that’s soooo interesting (irony inside). Drop them !
Toro Stevo
14th April 2011, 15:45
I can’t think of any reason Bahrain should be in this season, or any other, besides financial agreements the 99 year leasers have.
The country (this year) has constantly in the news for all manner of human rights abuses.
Its inclusion is not due to groundswell support in the country, but the ‘dreams’ of its un-elected leader.
The track is devoid of any character.
Temperature is ridiculous most of the year.
The track is always at the bottom of overtaking manoeuvres tables.
Some reasons are political, some are motor racing related. But my point is either way you look at it, it can’t justify its position. If F1 is apolitical, the track is simply too crap. If the track quality matters little, the political situation is untenable with a modern motor racing formula which relies on sponsorship dollars.
But the ultimate reason – I think everybody is sick of hearing about it. At the very least, let’s put Bahrain 2011 to bed.
DaveW
14th April 2011, 15:50
“Security has prevailed.” Bahrain has finally solved the age-old political science conundrum of how to balance freedom with security with an astonishing and innovative solution. Only have one. Oceans of ink spilled on this topic by legions of PhDs have culminated in this glorious day.
Lucas "Mr. Veloce"
20th April 2011, 15:15
My ideal 2012 calender would be:
1. Bahrain
2. Malaysia
3. Australia
4. Turkey
5. Spain
6. Monaco
7. Britain
8. Canada
9. USA
10. Europe
11. Germany
12. Hungary
13. Belgium
14. Italy
15. Singapore
16. Korea
17. India
18. Abu Dhabi
19. Brazil
20. Japan
21. China