planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:56 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
 Post subject: Ferrari to retain Veto
PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 3:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16446
Ferrari will retain their Veto under the new Concorde agreement -

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14742 ... -agreement

Anyone else feel that despite new ownership nothing has really changed at all? I can't see any justification for handing this power to any competitor. The fact that it is only given to one is totally anti-sporting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6771
Location: Nebraska, USA
Has Ferrari ever used the Veto or abused it? If not Ferrari, who should represent the teams with veto power? I seriously doubt that Ferrari or any on F1 team would exercise the Veto without broad support from other teams.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 2010
Location: Colwyn Bay, North Wales
Blake wrote:
Has Ferrari ever used the Veto or abused it? If not Ferrari, who should represent the teams with veto power? I seriously doubt that Ferrari or any on F1 team would exercise the Veto without broad support from other teams.

They blocked a cost cap on engines which the smaller teams would have benefited from.

_________________
Organiser of the single most low-tech Robot Wars tournament in history, PM for details!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2833
Location: England
No team should have a veto, and no team should be held as bigger than any of the others when it comes to decision making for the sport regardless of whatever history they may or may not have in F1.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2019:
Current positon: 14th | 4 Podiums | 5 Wins
2018 Pick 10 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 4372
Tufty wrote:
Blake wrote:
Has Ferrari ever used the Veto or abused it? If not Ferrari, who should represent the teams with veto power? I seriously doubt that Ferrari or any on F1 team would exercise the Veto without broad support from other teams.

They blocked a cost cap on engines which the smaller teams would have benefited from.


That's true, but it's worth noting that some other teams had not agreed to it either.

(N.B. I don't agree with the veto.)

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16446
Blake wrote:
Has Ferrari ever used the Veto or abused it? If not Ferrari, who should represent the teams with veto power? I seriously doubt that Ferrari or any on F1 team would exercise the Veto without broad support from other teams.


They blocked a cap on the amount manufacturers could charge for engines.

Nobody should have a veto. I can't recall another sport where one participant has this kind of final say over the rules whilst overs do not. How is it a level playing field?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 8:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6771
Location: Nebraska, USA
If no team has a say, then the teams have no real power in the directives passed down. as long as the threat of a Veto is present, the teams have an "ace" in the game. Personally, I feel the Veto power is a good thing and would have no problem with it being rotated amongst the top teams. I would, however, object to teams who have no real history in the sport having it.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 8:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6771
Location: Nebraska, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blake wrote:
Has Ferrari ever used the Veto or abused it? If not Ferrari, who should represent the teams with veto power? I seriously doubt that Ferrari or any on F1 team would exercise the Veto without broad support from other teams.


They blocked a cap on the amount manufacturers could charge for engines.

Nobody should have a veto. I can't recall another sport where one participant has this kind of final say over the rules whilst overs do not. How is it a level playing field?


We're they the only team in favor of the Veto use against the price cap? I was thinking nearly all of the engine manufacturers objected to being forced to selling their engines at a lost??? Can't imagine why?
;)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 8:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16446
Blake wrote:
If no team has a say, then the teams have no real power in the directives passed down. as long as the threat of a Veto is present, the teams have an "ace" in the game. Personally, I feel the Veto power is a good thing and would have no problem with it being rotated amongst the top teams. I would, however, object to teams who have no real history in the sport having it.


I don't think you can give it to one and not all and be fair. I don't think the teams should have that kind of power at all. This isn't how other sports are run.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 8:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16446
Blake wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blake wrote:
Has Ferrari ever used the Veto or abused it? If not Ferrari, who should represent the teams with veto power? I seriously doubt that Ferrari or any on F1 team would exercise the Veto without broad support from other teams.


They blocked a cap on the amount manufacturers could charge for engines.

Nobody should have a veto. I can't recall another sport where one participant has this kind of final say over the rules whilst overs do not. How is it a level playing field?


We're they the only team in favor of the Veto use against the price cap? I was thinking nearly all of the engine manufacturers objected to being forced to selling their engines at a lost??? Can't imagine why?
;)


That's not the point. This isn't about evil Ferrari. It would be just as wrong for a special power to be given to any other team. How hapy would Ferrari be if Williams had this power and they didn't?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 8:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6771
Location: Nebraska, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blake wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blake wrote:
Has Ferrari ever used the Veto or abused it? If not Ferrari, who should represent the teams with veto power? I seriously doubt that Ferrari or any on F1 team would exercise the Veto without broad support from other teams.


They blocked a cap on the amount manufacturers could charge for engines.

Nobody should have a veto. I can't recall another sport where one participant has this kind of final say over the rules whilst overs do not. How is it a level playing field?


We're they the only team in favor of the Veto use against the price cap? I was thinking nearly all of the engine manufacturers objected to being forced to selling their engines at a lost??? Can't imagine why?
;)


That's not the point. This isn't about evil Ferrari. It would be just as wrong for a special power to be given to any other team. How hapy would Ferrari be if Williams had this power and they didn't?


mikey, I said I would have no problem if the teams with extended history in F1 were to have the Veto...ie McLaren, Williams, Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault or Red Bull. I'd just want it to rest with a team with a vested interest in the f1 long term. Would Ferrari be happy about it? I don't know, but tough, the would have to live with it. Has there been any real effort by the other F1 teams to remove the Veto from Ferrari???

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16446
Blake wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blake wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blake wrote:
Has Ferrari ever used the Veto or abused it? If not Ferrari, who should represent the teams with veto power? I seriously doubt that Ferrari or any on F1 team would exercise the Veto without broad support from other teams.


They blocked a cap on the amount manufacturers could charge for engines.

Nobody should have a veto. I can't recall another sport where one participant has this kind of final say over the rules whilst overs do not. How is it a level playing field?


We're they the only team in favor of the Veto use against the price cap? I was thinking nearly all of the engine manufacturers objected to being forced to selling their engines at a lost??? Can't imagine why?
;)


That's not the point. This isn't about evil Ferrari. It would be just as wrong for a special power to be given to any other team. How hapy would Ferrari be if Williams had this power and they didn't?


mikey, I said I would have no problem if the teams with extended history in F1 were to have the Veto...ie McLaren, Williams, Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault or Red Bull. I'd just want it to rest with a team with a vested interest in the f1 long term. Would Ferrari be happy about it? I don't know, but tough, the would have to live with it. Has there been any real effort by the other F1 teams to remove the Veto from Ferrari???


I've no idea but it shouldn't be up to them. Why should the competitors have this kind of power? Surely you can see how unsporting it is for just one to have it? Don't Ferrari (and the other big teams) already have enough advantages?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:45 am
Posts: 767
Location: Michigan, USA
Generally I feel that some things are changing slowly or more slowly than I would like, some things have changed a lot (albeit mostly minor things), and some haven't changed. All in all, it's about what I expected. Sudden, major upheavals were never likely.

I don't agree with any team having the veto, however, and it is disappointing - although not terribly surprising - that it has been retained.

_________________
Image
Qualifying Prediction Game 2019 Champion [8 wins]
Pick 10: 1 win, 8 podiums | 2016: 22nd | 2017: 21st | 2018: 3rd |
Top Three: 9 wins, 26 podiums | 2016: 9th [6th] | 2017: 16th [6th] | 2018: 4th [4th] |


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6771
Location: Nebraska, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blake wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blake wrote:
We're they the only team in favor of the Veto use against the price cap? I was thinking nearly all of the engine manufacturers objected to being forced to selling their engines at a lost??? Can't imagine why?
;)


That's not the point. This isn't about evil Ferrari. It would be just as wrong for a special power to be given to any other team. How hapy would Ferrari be if Williams had this power and they didn't?


mikey, I said I would have no problem if the teams with extended history in F1 were to have the Veto...ie McLaren, Williams, Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault or Red Bull. I'd just want it to rest with a team with a vested interest in the f1 long term. Would Ferrari be happy about it? I don't know, but tough, the would have to live with it. Has there been any real effort by the other F1 teams to remove the Veto from Ferrari???


I've no idea but it shouldn't be up to them. Why should the competitors have this kind of power? Surely you can see how unsporting it is for just one to have it? Don't Ferrari (and the other big teams) already have enough advantages?

They are the teams who bring in the money so the others have a series to race in.

So give the Veto to all teams and you could have Haas (for example) block something that ALL the other teams and FOM feel is best for the sport. Of course, the ONE team that has the Veto could do it as well, but to date that hasn't really happened. I also believe that the teams deserve a say in the rules and regulations...especially the majors, after all, they are any F1 is what it is.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 10:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16446
Blake wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blake wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blake wrote:
We're they the only team in favor of the Veto use against the price cap? I was thinking nearly all of the engine manufacturers objected to being forced to selling their engines at a lost??? Can't imagine why?
;)


That's not the point. This isn't about evil Ferrari. It would be just as wrong for a special power to be given to any other team. How hapy would Ferrari be if Williams had this power and they didn't?


mikey, I said I would have no problem if the teams with extended history in F1 were to have the Veto...ie McLaren, Williams, Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault or Red Bull. I'd just want it to rest with a team with a vested interest in the f1 long term. Would Ferrari be happy about it? I don't know, but tough, the would have to live with it. Has there been any real effort by the other F1 teams to remove the Veto from Ferrari???


I've no idea but it shouldn't be up to them. Why should the competitors have this kind of power? Surely you can see how unsporting it is for just one to have it? Don't Ferrari (and the other big teams) already have enough advantages?

They are the teams who bring in the money so the others have a series to race in.

So give the Veto to all teams and you could have Haas (for example) block something that ALL the other teams and FOM feel is best for the sport. Of course, the ONE team that has the Veto could do it as well, but to date that hasn't really happened. I also believe that the teams deserve a say in the rules and regulations...especially the majors, after all, they are any F1 is what it is.


The fact that all the teams having a veto would be ridiculous is the best reason for no teams being granted one. Give the teams a representative at the table when rules are being discussed sure but giving them what is essentially the casting vote is a step to far. It gives Ferrari a huge political advantage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 10:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33376
Given some of the proposals that have been put forward by Liberty Media and Ross Brawn, I'm happy that a team like Ferrari can say no way Jose. :)

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 11:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am
Posts: 1405
Imagine if Manchester United has a veto on how the Premier League worked? It’d be crazy. The teams shouldn’t have a say in decisions on the rules. Definitely involve them in finding out what they think but final decisions shouldn’t be voted on/vetoed by teams.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6771
Location: Nebraska, USA
JN23 wrote:
Imagine if Manchester United has a veto on how the Premier League worked? It’d be crazy. The teams shouldn’t have a say in decisions on the rules. Definitely involve them in finding out what they think but final decisions shouldn’t be voted on/vetoed by teams.

the teams SHOULD have a say in decisions on the rules. They are investing 100s of millions each year in order to compete in F1. I know of no other sport where the teams invest to anywhere near that level. Some other sports do have team representation in decision making. The NFL, for example, the teams do have a say/vote in league rules as the owners sit on a committee that decides on rule changes.

I understand the concern some have for a team...ie Ferrari in this case, having veto power. However, I think it is important that the teams have some means of saying NO to rules that are not beneficial to them. Being forced to sell your engines at a loss being but one example.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:04 am
Posts: 1886
Someone from the team needs to have a veto power for financial and technical regulations. They should not however have veto in sporting regulations.

A sport runners left unchecked with all the financial power and decision making power would mean FOM has all the say, that aint good for teams. Especially the actual manufacturers who are pouring millions into R&D and Engine manufacturing. The teams which are actually making and supplying engines must get their fair share of representation.
Engine cost cap was one such issue. It would have been completely unfair to restrict the engine cost cap after the top 2 teams had already powered millions without knowing the proposed cost cap. Mercedes and Renault were opposed to it anyway.

Ferrari for all the power they technically have, haven't really abused veto power in a long time. In fact, they have bend over backwards on some in-season controversies to ensure sport does not come in dispute despite they themselves suffering because of that.

Ideally, we should have the Engine manufacturer's group and they should have representation. But there, I have a slight issue with how Renault had handled things in past. They were a huge factor in we having current turbo era. It didn't work for them in the end but they had at one point threatened to quit F1 if F1 didn't adopt this new formula. And they were dominant supplier in the sport back then. They really abused their position and here we are.
So I am fine with Ferrari veto and last year Mercedes & Wolf made it very clear they are fine with it as they have gentleman's understanding with Ferrari and they believe they wont abuse it and there is no denying their contribution and legacy.

The comparison with other sports is not fair and in fact pointless. There is no other sport where 2 or 3 teams make all the big financial investment in the sport. In the football analogy used here, that would be lke Manchester united being only one of the 2 or 3 clubs with actual stadiums, player academy, and all other teams gets to use their players and facilities without United having any say in the matter.
F1 team having no say in the F1 would be as ridiculous as that sounds. F1 is not like other sports. ANd so it will never function like other sports or even other fixed spec. motorsports.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6771
Location: Nebraska, USA
:thumbup:
Good post, funky

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 2205
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Blake wrote:
Has Ferrari ever used the Veto or abused it? If not Ferrari, who should represent the teams with veto power? I seriously doubt that Ferrari or any on F1 team would exercise the Veto without broad support from other teams.


Looks like other teams think they're big enough to fight their own battles without Ferrari's help.

Christian Horner- “You can say ‘OK, it’s a safety net for them representing the teams’. But ultimately they’re representing Ferrari. So probably if we’re going for a clean sheet of paper it would make sense for it not to be there and [have] the same rules for everyone.”

Zac Brown (Responding to Mattia Binotto's comment that the veto serve's to protect all the teams) - “very kind of him to offer to represent the teams’ interests.”

“But I think we all have varying interests. Formula 1 themselves want to do what’s in the best of interest in the sport which I think is ultimately in the best interest of all of us and so we’re best having our own individual negotiations when and if that is appropriate.”


https://www.racefans.net/2019/05/23/more-of-ferraris-rivals-speak-out-against-their-f1-rules-veto/

Claire Williams - "I think it’s just silly if I can be honest. I' have a problem in our sport anyway in the fact that I feel it’s far too democratic. I’ve been quite open about that. I feel that F1 and the FIA should take more ownership of the regulations."

Cyril Abiteaboul - "I think we need F1 to be progressive rather than defensive and the ability to block due process can be perceived or decided to be a positive for the sport is probably not good. Having said that, we completely recognise the specific value of Ferrari to the sport".

https://drivetribe.com/p/f1-teams-against-ferraris-veto-SBqAg4JES_-9OaWfBsJzKQ?iid=AqoML8p8QPqn5gzeOsl4ng

So if you throw in Toro Rosso, who tow the RB line, that's 5 of the remaining 9 teams who feel Ferrari having veto power is not in the best interest of the sport, & these are the people you'd expect to have the greatest insight into the situation.

Of course the teams should & must have a seat at the table but I find it absolutely incredulous that 1 single participant, & that's what Ferrari is, a participant, holds so much power, incidental of how often they actually use that power, over the direction of an entire sporting series.

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After Brazil- 19) - 138 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 360 trophies available, 26 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 3062
As Mercedes have been the dominant team of the decade I think they should have the veto for the next decade. And then they hand the veto banner over to whoever dominates for the next decade.
Not that I agree with the veto belonging to one team, it would be just be interesting to hear what Ferrari suddenly think about one team having the veto.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:58 pm
Posts: 175
.

I've always thought that the Ferrari veto explains why the FIA is known to many as "Ferrari's International Assistance". If the FIA, Liberty, or whoever do something to annoy Ferrari then Ferrari will veto some plans.

.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16446
Jezza13 wrote:
Blake wrote:
Has Ferrari ever used the Veto or abused it? If not Ferrari, who should represent the teams with veto power? I seriously doubt that Ferrari or any on F1 team would exercise the Veto without broad support from other teams.


Looks like other teams think they're big enough to fight their own battles without Ferrari's help.

Christian Horner- “You can say ‘OK, it’s a safety net for them representing the teams’. But ultimately they’re representing Ferrari. So probably if we’re going for a clean sheet of paper it would make sense for it not to be there and [have] the same rules for everyone.”

Zac Brown (Responding to Mattia Binotto's comment that the veto serve's to protect all the teams) - “very kind of him to offer to represent the teams’ interests.”

“But I think we all have varying interests. Formula 1 themselves want to do what’s in the best of interest in the sport which I think is ultimately in the best interest of all of us and so we’re best having our own individual negotiations when and if that is appropriate.”


https://www.racefans.net/2019/05/23/more-of-ferraris-rivals-speak-out-against-their-f1-rules-veto/

Claire Williams - "I think it’s just silly if I can be honest. I' have a problem in our sport anyway in the fact that I feel it’s far too democratic. I’ve been quite open about that. I feel that F1 and the FIA should take more ownership of the regulations."

Cyril Abiteaboul - "I think we need F1 to be progressive rather than defensive and the ability to block due process can be perceived or decided to be a positive for the sport is probably not good. Having said that, we completely recognise the specific value of Ferrari to the sport".

https://drivetribe.com/p/f1-teams-against-ferraris-veto-SBqAg4JES_-9OaWfBsJzKQ?iid=AqoML8p8QPqn5gzeOsl4ng

So if you throw in Toro Rosso, who tow the RB line, that's 5 of the remaining 9 teams who feel Ferrari having veto power is not in the best interest of the sport, & these are the people you'd expect to have the greatest insight into the situation.

Of course the teams should & must have a seat at the table but I find it absolutely incredulous that 1 single participant, & that's what Ferrari is, a participant, holds so much power, incidental of how often they actually use that power, over the direction of an entire sporting series.


My thoughts entirely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 3311
Location: UK
To me the only thing more baffling than this arrangement is that some people actually think it is a good thing for the sport.

I had hoped that the new owners were going to make things more fair, and with the budget cap coming in and proposed improvements to the revenue distribution I still think we are at least going in that direction. But for one team to hold power of veto over the rules? I find that utterly stupid and unprecedented in the sporting world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1998
Ferrari hold the veto power for being the only one to stick with the sport, Redbull Mclaren and others can cry for however much they want.

Take Ferrari out of F1 and other teams will follow them out.

Mercedes has been the most successful team this decade and their future in the sport is not certain, whilst the Ferrari everyone loves to hate continues to go racing without success and does not think of calling it quits, a little downturn and Mercedes is reconsidering all their operations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16446
Situations like today's non penalty for the Ferrari transgression shows exactly why one team alone should not have a veto. It could well be coincidence that the FIA are trying to get their 2021 rules ratified and seemingly doing everything to avoid giving Ferrari sporting penalties during the 2nd half of the season.

The problem with the veto is that it opens up the possibility that is not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7916
JN23 wrote:
Imagine if Manchester United has a veto on how the Premier League worked? It’d be crazy. The teams shouldn’t have a say in decisions on the rules. Definitely involve them in finding out what they think but final decisions shouldn’t be voted on/vetoed by teams.

I don't think this is a valid example, how often do the rules change in the Premier League compared to F1? Not really comparable in my opinion, they are different sports.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7916
mikeyg123 wrote:
Situations like today's non penalty for the Ferrari transgression shows exactly why one team alone should not have a veto. It could well be coincidence that the FIA are trying to get their 2021 rules ratified and seemingly doing everything to avoid giving Ferrari sporting penalties during the 2nd half of the season.

The problem with the veto is that it opens up the possibility that is not.


Well they got fined, didn't they? (I do not know what the penalty should be for that infringement, maybe this was just a slap on the wrist because they wanted an exciting fight with Max for the season finale, or if the rules say that the penalty for this type of infringement is a fine)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16446
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Situations like today's non penalty for the Ferrari transgression shows exactly why one team alone should not have a veto. It could well be coincidence that the FIA are trying to get their 2021 rules ratified and seemingly doing everything to avoid giving Ferrari sporting penalties during the 2nd half of the season.

The problem with the veto is that it opens up the possibility that is not.


Well they got fined, didn't they? (I do not know what the penalty should be for that infringement, maybe this was just a slap on the wrist because they wanted an exciting fight with Max for the season finale, or if the rules say that the penalty for this type of infringement is a fine)


I believe the rules say it's an automatic DSQ. That's just what people have said. Can't say I've looked it up myself.

I'm not saying the decision is corrupt. I don't know. I'm just highlighting the conflict of interest when the people who police the competitors also need one of them (just one) on side to achieve their aims.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7916
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Situations like today's non penalty for the Ferrari transgression shows exactly why one team alone should not have a veto. It could well be coincidence that the FIA are trying to get their 2021 rules ratified and seemingly doing everything to avoid giving Ferrari sporting penalties during the 2nd half of the season.

The problem with the veto is that it opens up the possibility that is not.


Well they got fined, didn't they? (I do not know what the penalty should be for that infringement, maybe this was just a slap on the wrist because they wanted an exciting fight with Max for the season finale, or if the rules say that the penalty for this type of infringement is a fine)


I believe the rules say it's an automatic DSQ. That's just what people have said. Can't say I've looked it up myself.

I'm not saying the decision is corrupt. I don't know. I'm just highlighting the conflict of interest when the people who police the competitors also need one of them (just one) on side to achieve their aims.


I do not know and I can't find anything on it, it is a fairly new rule I understand. I do not understand this rule anyway, what is the issue? What does it serve to declare how much fuel they intend to use in the car? I would see an issue if the car ran underweight or something, but having more fuel on board only hurts them with the extra weight. They have the fuel sensors to measure the fuel flow in case that is the reason why


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16446
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Situations like today's non penalty for the Ferrari transgression shows exactly why one team alone should not have a veto. It could well be coincidence that the FIA are trying to get their 2021 rules ratified and seemingly doing everything to avoid giving Ferrari sporting penalties during the 2nd half of the season.

The problem with the veto is that it opens up the possibility that is not.


Well they got fined, didn't they? (I do not know what the penalty should be for that infringement, maybe this was just a slap on the wrist because they wanted an exciting fight with Max for the season finale, or if the rules say that the penalty for this type of infringement is a fine)


I believe the rules say it's an automatic DSQ. That's just what people have said. Can't say I've looked it up myself.

I'm not saying the decision is corrupt. I don't know. I'm just highlighting the conflict of interest when the people who police the competitors also need one of them (just one) on side to achieve their aims.


I do not know and I can't find anything on it, it is a fairly new rule I understand. I do not understand this rule anyway, what is the issue? What does it serve to declare how much fuel they intend to use in the car? I would see an issue if the car ran underweight or something, but having more fuel on board only hurts them with the extra weight. They have the fuel sensors to measure the fuel flow in case that is the reason why


Well that is the issue isn't it? Ferrari have supposedly been using a higher flow rate than is allowed. If that is the case then the extra fuel has to come from somewhere.

I don't think this is really the place to debate the nature of any Ferrari transgressions. I was just using the situation to highlight how much of a conflict of interest with the FIA this veto causes. It gives the FIA a potential motive for punishing Ferrari less harshly than they do others. It's almost irrelevant if that is happening in this case or not. The point is the possibility for it exists.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group