FIA The Criteria for Good Decision Making

snowy

Champion Elect
Although the FIA accepted that Raikkonen would not have crashed if he had slowed down dramatically, it is understood the governing body believed that any other driver would have rejoined the track in the same manner.

So according to the FIA, as long as everybody does it, it is OK!
 
Last edited:

chreden

Podium Finisher
Contributor
Stewards and opinions may change, but those in key positions don't. Charlie Whiting for example has been Technical Delegate since 1988 which is as long as I've been alive. That's a long time for anyone to do the same job in a high profile sport.
 

Fenderman

Rooters Reporter
Extract from FIA Official Unwritten Regulations

1. Technical Governance Rules

1.a. If we like it teams can have it. If we don't they cannot.

Example: Methinks we shalt ban the F-Duct because it interferes with the aerodynamics of the rear wing. We will introduce a flappy letterbox and tell you when and where you can use it.
 

siffert_fan

Too old to watch the Asian races live.
Contributor
For anyone who thinks what the FIA is doing NOW is stupid, look up what they did with the Brabham BT46B in 1978!
 

KekeTheKing

Banned
Supporter
Bernie always has to correct people when this subject comes up. He withdrew the car. It was an ingenious, but ultimately ludicrous design. Terminal (fan) failures on that car would have been disastrous. It is a great testimonial to what Gordon Murray was capable of though!

Is this really going to be a thread just to shit on the FIA? Not that I'm against it...
 

Mephistopheles

Banned
Contributor
Just as a point of interest Fenderman the FIA did not ban the F-Duct FOTA agreed not to use it, in other words it was a self imposed ban by the teams in fact Mercedes were using a passive F-Duct system in 2012 a year after the so called ban..

Feel free to call me a smart ass...
 
Last edited:

siffert_fan

Too old to watch the Asian races live.
Contributor
Getting back to the question raised by the title:

If most people were being honest they would say that any decision that benefits their favorite team/driver is the right decision.
 

Brogan

🦶 Leg end
Staff Member
Drivers have been penalised for far less.

I thought the general rule of thumb was if you ended someone's race you recieve a penalty.

I am amazed Räikkönen escaped any form of censure.

At least the FIA remain consistently inconsistent.
 

Mephistopheles

Banned
Contributor
Is there an actual rule stating a driver has to slow down when rejoining the track? And if there is could someone quote it for me..
 
Last edited:

Mephistopheles

Banned
Contributor
It is strange that people show such double standards when it comes to the rules I can certainly remember cars leaving the track rejoining getting airborne and being praised for how brave they were for keeping their foot in I can remember M Schumacher leaving the track at the exit of the last turn in Melbourne catching some massive air and carrying on and I remember Brundle banging on about how brilliant and brave he was for doing so.

I can also remember Grosjean leaving the track in Hungary and overtaking another car and being told by the stewards to give the place back and as I recall people on this forum slating the stewards for their decision and saying what a great passing maneuver it was and what a bunch of ****ers the stewards really are.

It seems to me whatever the stewards decide there is always going to be someone who does not like that decision and say the stewards are inconsistent idiots, basically they are damned whatever decision they make..

And now we have an entire thread dedicated to saying how shit the stewards are and claiming that they couldn't make the right decision if they were offered a choice between a cream bun and a dog shit sandwich.

Well that's me putting the other side of the story like it or lump it...
 

Fenderman

Rooters Reporter
As a matter of interest. Meph' did any of those incidents you mentioned trash any of the competition's cars or send a tyre flying past a blokes earhole?;)
 

Mephistopheles

Banned
Contributor
No but none of the drivers who kept their foot in knew what the result of doing so would be either, as they say hindsight is twenty, twenty I'm not sure it is feasible to have a rule which states as long as you don't cause an accident then it is okay to do it or one that says if you get away with it then you are a brave hero but if you don't we are going to nail your ass to the wall.

The fact is if nothing would have come of Kimi's excursion we would not be talking about it in this manner we would be sayingr wow kimi's has got some massive balls
 
Last edited:

F1Yorkshire

Avatar for sale to the highest bidder
Contributor
Such a manoeuvre is acceptable in car parks such as Bahrain, Abu Dhabi and to some extent COTA, the difference between those and tracks like Malaysia, Silverstone, Spa & Interlagos is the expected level of rainfall. Rain needs to go somewhere, if there isn't a ditch by the track then we would have a lot more red flagged races while waiting for puddles to subside.

If you look at the Kimi thread, Fenderman posted an excellent article explaining what he did wrong. Kimi should have been aware of ditches by the side of the track and taken the appropriate care. Petrov did something equally stupid at Malaysia and broke his car while doing so.

 
Last edited:

Mephistopheles

Banned
Contributor
Petrov did not get penalized by the stewards for what he did and there are not rain gullies on both sides of the entire track so how the hell is Kimi supposed to know where each one of them is or isn't? or is that a new criteria for drivers to learn now, there certainly wasn't a rain gully at the place where Kimi left the track or he would have gone airborne then wouldn't he.

Rain gullies can be and should be designed so that they do not launch the car into the air they are not meant to be there as a man made hazard this isn't golf we are talking about.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom