Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

la force supreme des mclaren

Mosley Survives Vote........will Stay On

Recommended Posts


:lol: Damn my dinner was good. Spaghetti Bolognese, 3 hours in the making by yours truly. All that wine seems to have taken its toll both above and below the belt though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol: Damn my dinner was good. Spaghetti Bolognese, 3 hours in the making by yours truly. All that wine seems to have taken its toll both above and below the belt though.

:lol:

3hrs?? That's why I don't cook. I'd have snacked so much whilst waiting I wouldn't have room left for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it was hard not to, but most of the time it wasn't really "cooking", just letting it simmer gently so it reduces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyhow it is irrelevant. Voting was by the rules everyone accepted when signed up for organization. It is childish to accept to play game by one set of rules and then after you lose claim that rules were not fair.

Maybe not, but surely you can see the flaw in the principle that a very small percentage of the electorate are able to steer the vote? Arguably the voting system is at fault there, not democracy itself.

I was think about it a long time and i only really came up with one answer, and that was Todt. People may not like the Idea thinking that he would favor Ferrari but I doubt it.

Todt has always been a good leader and knows how to enforce decisions that are unpopular without all the drama that Max constantly stirs up. Todt also has the racing background to to help him govern all the FIA sports with a technical understanding and knowing how to create both a safe but also enjoying race. Don\'t forget that before F1 he was a champion Rally, Le Mans, and Sports Cars manager.

Not only do I believe that Todt would be far from transparent (he wasnt even transparent when he was with Ferrari), I do not believe for a second he would be unbiased, nor do I think he would ever be able to convince anyone outside of Ferrari that he was biased. In my opinion the only possible person that would be acceptable for a post of this nature would be someone with no previous involvement with any of the teams, that had no vested interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mosley staying is going to cause a big fall out! I am not happy over it at all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe not, but surely you can see the flaw in the principle that a very small percentage of the electorate are able to steer the vote? Arguably the voting system is at fault there, not democracy itself.

Not only do I believe that Todt would be far from transparent (he wasnt even transparent when he was with Ferrari), I do not believe for a second he would be unbiased, nor do I think he would ever be able to convince anyone outside of Ferrari that he was biased. In my opinion the only possible person that would be acceptable for a post of this nature would be someone with no previous involvement with any of the teams, that had no vested interests.

Todt has no vested interests, After Michael left Luca pretty much told him to get lost. now he is slowly being moved out of any sort of role and just sitting behind his desk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Todt has no vested interests, After Michael left Luca pretty much told him to get lost. now he is slowly being moved out of any sort of role and just sitting behind his desk.

Dont kid yourself for a second that he has cut his ties with ferrari. Not only that, could you honestly tell me he would have an easy time convincing anyone not a Ferrari member or fan that he was being fair, transparent, and unbiased. Personally I hope we get a leader with the strength to stem the tide of pro-ferrari bias within F1 management because that is frankly one of the reasons that I dislike mosely. Installing todt would make the bias worse, not better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Complete bollocks. You don't understand the meaning of private. However, if you think paying 5 hookers to indulge in sex games in a basement is private, go ahead and be my guest. You'll get far in life :whistling:

Oh and by the way, Mosley , who you said acted admirably during the Mclaren spygate, said something along the lines of '....................it doesn't matter how the information came to light....................'

You live by the sword, you die by the sword :lol:

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse. The point is not that the information came to light, the point is that it's irrelevant if it does. A private matter is a private matter. It doesn't automatically become everyone else's business if they find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol: Damn my dinner was good. Spaghetti Bolognese, 3 hours in the making by yours truly. All that wine seems to have taken its toll both above and below the belt though.
:lol:

3hrs?? That's why I don't cook. I'd have snacked so much whilst waiting I wouldn't have room left for it!

Is this that "two fat ladies" show?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse. The point is not that the information came to light, the point is that it's irrelevant if it does. A private matter is a private matter. It doesn't automatically become everyone else's business if they find out.

You are seriously trying to convince me that going to a basement and paying 5 hookers to indulge in your sexual preference is a private matter?? And I am the one that's obtuse????? :lol:

So presumably, from your response you would do it ??? Man, you are dumber than you look and that's impressive :whistling:

Anyway, seriously though, I know that if I wanted to keep something private, I wouldn't be telling or paying anyone else to join me, that's for sure. Indulging in any sexual practice in a place of unknown quantity, or with people of unknown quantities, or uncontrollable circumstances, is a risk, that's just common sense.

And I was merely pointing out that Mosley himself thinks it's irrelevant how information comes to light, so he cannot expect other people to listen to his claims of foul when the tables are turned and he is the recipient, now can he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"He should realise that sometimes it is necessary to say to yourself I have to leave for reasons of credibility

Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo

"I hope that it will not destabilise sponsors and the constructors."

"I knew he would win but I still don't think it's good for him or the FIA.

"He said he wanted to finish at the end of 2007, and then the end of this year, before all this happened.

FIA president Max Mosley

Mosley is under pressure despite his win in Tuesday's FIA Vote

"Max should stand down in November. For me, it's a difficult situation because I run the Formula One group of companies and the teams - the manufacturers - are violently opposed to him.

"But 62% of the automobile clubs that make up the FIA voted to retain him.

"Max has always ruled by fear but I think more people will be likely to take him on after this."

"What highlights the problems he may still face is what happened in Monaco.

"Prince Albert made it very clear that he did not want him on the grid and that he would have security around him so that if Max did appear they could not be seen togethe

Bernie

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport...one/7437083.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expanded version of Lucas interview from itv-f1

Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo has called on Max Mosley to stand down from the FIA presidency despite his endorsement by the governing bodys General Assembly on Tuesday.

At an extraordinary general meeting in Paris – convened after tabloid revelations about his sexual practices – Mosley won a vote of confidence of the FIA membership by a convincing 103 to 55 margin.

But the victory, achieved despite the vocal opposition of some of the most prominent national automobile clubs, has not silenced his critics or stemmed the calls for him to quit.

Montezemolo, who earlier this year praised Mosleys achievements during his 15-year period of office, believes the 68-year-old Englishmans position remains untenable because of the battering his reputation has taken since the scandal broke in March.

I think he should realise that sometimes it is necessary to say to yourself; I must leave for reasons of credibility, Montezemolo told Italian news agency ANSA.

Although four of Formula 1s manufacturers – Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Toyota and Honda – led the calls for Mosley to stand down, the teams themselves have been tight-lipped.

However, Formula 1s commercial impresario Bernie Ecclestone believes this may change now that Mosleys authority has been diminished.

Max has always ruled by fear – but I think more people will be likely to take him on after this, Ecclestone was quoted as saying by the Independent newspaper.

When asked for McLarens views on the Mosley affair, a team spokesman told itv.com/f1: McLaren has consistently refrained from commenting on the issue, on the basis that we regarded it as a matter for the FIA.

The FIA has now reached its decision.

We hope that the sport will now enter a period of stability.

BMW Sauber team boss Mario Theissen used similar language to express his companys hope that the sport will be able to move on from the Mosley saga.

Ecclestone, too, says he would like to see Formula 1 enjoy a little peace, but suggested this may not be compatible with Mosleys continued tenure.

What many people dont understand is that Max enjoys confrontation, he said.

“He likes argument! These things stimulate him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe not, but surely you can see the flaw in the principle that a very small percentage of the electorate are able to steer the vote? Arguably the voting system is at fault there, not democracy itself.

Bernie clearly thinks so...'I knew he would win (the vote), there was no way he could lose.' Source

Dont kid yourself for a second that he has cut his ties with ferrari. Not only that, could you honestly tell me he would have an easy time convincing anyone not a Ferrari member or fan that he was being fair, transparent, and unbiased. Personally I hope we get a leader with the strength to stem the tide of pro-ferrari bias within F1 management because that is frankly one of the reasons that I dislike mosely. Installing todt would make the bias worse, not better.

Indeed. Todt is not a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dont kid yourself for a second that he has cut his ties with ferrari. Not only that, could you honestly tell me he would have an easy time convincing anyone not a Ferrari member or fan that he was being fair, transparent, and unbiased. Personally I hope we get a leader with the strength to stem the tide of pro-ferrari bias within F1 management because that is frankly one of the reasons that I dislike mosely. Installing todt would make the bias worse, not better.

come on, you can't seriously think that. Ferrari don't get favorable treatment from the FIA. Its completely against the FIA's self interest to show favoritism. Also, if Ferrari really had been shown favoritism at any time in they would not have been punished for Austria 02, Michael would not have been put at the back in Monaco 06, the Flexi wings and floors would not have been banned, Meclaren's bridge wing would have been banned b/c Ferrari protested against it and the list goes on and on. For ever thing the FIA did that shows "favoritism" toward Ferrari they have penalized Ferrari for their own infractions.

The FIA does not favor Ferrari, if it had been Meclaren or Renault or Williams winning 5 strait years people would be saying the FIA favored them instead. What every team is in power at the time is said to be favored, but they never are. for the FIA 5 strait years of red was the worst thing to happen to them in a long time. It dropped viewer numbers and made them loose fans. From an Economical point of view favoring any team is suicide.

Every time someone says the FIA favor Ferrari by banning a part on a competitors car just see that they ban parts on the Ferraris just as often.

And yes I can say Todt would be able to convince people outside of Ferrari, he may not be respected by disillusioned fans but in F1 he is respected for both his fairness and his knowledge of the insides of formula one and motor racing in general.

Also, the FIA presidents role is not just over F1, it is about all the different sports the FIA controls, FOUR of the biggest of which he has been a Championship winning team manager in. And it deals with the different auto clubs from around the world.

The only other person I could see from F1 doing the job is Dr. Mario and he is too much part of BMW to ever give up that job in the near future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how you do not address the slightly less circumspect moments like the banning of the mass damper (still waiting to see proof on how that was a movable aero device btw), the Monza 06 penalty, the michelin tyre protestation and ban in 2003... Also, if I remember correctly, Ferrari where fined in Austria 2002 for improper podium protocol not team orders. As for Monaco 06, they had no choice but to penalise a blatant attempt to cheat, do you honestly think they would have been able to justify a reason for not imposing a penalty? Also as far as I can tell, Ferrari never protested the bridge wing because. sic, There is nothing about it to protest. Cant remember who said that but it was someone within Ferrari. The reason that the wing was not banned was because there was absoultely no justification for doing so, it was not flexible. Most of the footage attempting to show otherwise was proven to be the car moving in breaking zones with the loads of breaking. Also, if you look at the 2005 tyre rule, it actually made the end of grand prix more interesting, yet it was binned after only 1 season... Why? because Ferrari could not make their car work with it.

However, from a sporting POV, it is debatable whether ferrari get preferential treatment there, but it is obvious that Max has some bias towards them, his omissions of them being \"special\" ETC and his anger that Alonso and Hamilton didnt get thrown out of the 2007 WDC made that plainly obvious.

And yes I can say Todt would be able to convince people outside of Ferrari, he may not be respected by disillusioned fans but in F1 he is respected for both his fairness and his knowledge of the insides of formula one and motor racing in general.

I have no disrespect for him, I just do not think he would be right for the job because of his prior high-level involvement with another team. As I said, I believe it should be someone with no prior involvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
come on, you can't seriously think that. Ferrari don't get favorable treatment from the FIA. Its completely against the FIA's self interest to show favoritism. Also, if Ferrari really had been shown favoritism at any time in they would not have been punished for Austria 02, Michael would not have been put at the back in Monaco 06, the Flexi wings and floors would not have been banned, Meclaren's bridge wing would have been banned b/c Ferrari protested against it and the list goes on and on. For ever thing the FIA did that shows "favoritism" toward Ferrari they have penalized Ferrari for their own infractions.

The FIA does not favor Ferrari, if it had been Meclaren or Renault or Williams winning 5 strait years people would be saying the FIA favored them instead. What every team is in power at the time is said to be favored, but they never are. for the FIA 5 strait years of red was the worst thing to happen to them in a long time. It dropped viewer numbers and made them loose fans. From an Economical point of view favoring any team is suicide.

Every time someone says the FIA favor Ferrari by banning a part on a competitors car just see that they ban parts on the Ferraris just as often.

And yes I can say Todt would be able to convince people outside of Ferrari, he may not be respected by disillusioned fans but in F1 he is respected for both his fairness and his knowledge of the insides of formula one and motor racing in general.

Also, the FIA presidents role is not just over F1, it is about all the different sports the FIA controls, FOUR of the biggest of which he has been a Championship winning team manager in. And it deals with the different auto clubs from around the world.

The only other person I could see from F1 doing the job is Dr. Mario and he is too much part of BMW to ever give up that job in the near future.

Yep.

Funny how you do not address the slightly less circumspect moments like the banning of the mass damper (still waiting to see proof on how that was a movable aero device btw), the Monza 06 penalty, the michelin tyre protestation and ban in 2003... Also, if I remember correctly, Ferrari where fined in Austria 2002 for improper podium protocol not team orders. As for Monaco 06, they had no choice but to penalise a blatant attempt to cheat, do you honestly think they would have been able to justify a reason for not imposing a penalty? Also as far as I can tell, Ferrari never protested the bridge wing because. sic, There is nothing about it to protest. Cant remember who said that but it was someone within Ferrari. The reason that the wing was not banned was because there was absoultely no justification for doing so, it was not flexible. Most of the footage attempting to show otherwise was proven to be the car moving in breaking zones with the loads of breaking. Also, if you look at the 2005 tyre rule, it actually made the end of grand prix more interesting, yet it was binned after only 1 season... Why? because Ferrari could not make their car work with it.

However, from a sporting POV, it is debatable whether ferrari get preferential treatment there, but it is obvious that Max has some bias towards them, his omissions of them being \"special\" ETC and his anger that Alonso and Hamilton didnt get thrown out of the 2007 WDC made that plainly obvious.

I have no disrespect for him, I just do not think he would be right for the job because of his prior high-level involvement with another team. As I said, I believe it should be someone with no prior involvement.

Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, thats the quote I was looking for. Ferrari fans actually seem to honestly wonder how we get any ideas of favouritism from obviously quotes like that pass under their radar, because it does not fit in with their theories.

Nope.

What a wonderful and incisive way to argue all my points :thumbsup: I know for a fact that I am right abous Austria 2002, they never got punished for team orders at all. Go look it up if you want, but I can assure you the fine was for a breach of posium protocol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What a wonderful and incisive way to argue all my points :thumbsup: I know for a fact that I am right abous Austria 2002, they never got punished for team orders at all. Go look it up if you want, but I can assure you the fine was for a breach of posium protocol.

You are right, but it was impossible for Ferrari to get punished for team orders because they were actually allowed at that time. Team orders only got banned after the events in Austria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not forgetting of course that of all the teams, Ferrari gets a larger percentage payout from the FIA for TV/prizes than any other team because of their "historical value...."

Something which other teams have challenged and has never been over-ruled. No surprise then that Ferrari will always vote for FIA as they stand to lose out financially in any other scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is true!! I had forgotten totally about the historical payout (or whatevet it's called) - not surprising the other teams don't like it!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are right, but it was impossible for Ferrari to get punished for team orders because they were actually allowed at that time. Team orders only got banned after the events in Austria.

Indeed, just trying to point out to f1 FANatic that the penalty was not for what he thought it was.

Not forgetting of course that of all the teams, Ferrari gets a larger percentage payout from the FIA for TV/prizes than any other team because of their historical value....

Something which other teams have challenged and has never been over-ruled. No surprise then that Ferrari will always vote for FIA as they stand to lose out financially in any other scenario.

I never realised that, but it sure as hell sucks. People seem to forget that before the Schumacher era, Ferrari where not anything like as successful as they are in the modern era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will adress each of your concerns one at a time so here goes

the banning of the mass damper (still waiting to see proof on how that was a movable aero device btw)

The mass dampers were banned because they stabilized the front wing of the Renault. If the nose went up the dampers helped bring it down and vice versa to stabilise the front wing which is an aerodynamic device. Since the Dampers worked to help the wing work they are part of that aerodynamic device. since the dampers moved freely in relation to the car they are a moving device. Moving Device + aero device = Movable aerodynamic device.

the Monza 06 penalty

You can't pick a choose and say, well here they favored Ferrari and here they didn't because of PR problems. The whole meaning of Favoritism is that they FIA would Favor Ferrari no matter what the outcome. Thats what you call spin doctoring, using one set of data but totally disregarding another set that gives slightly different results.

the michelin tyre protestation and ban in 2003

The rules were very simple. The rules said a tiers running serfuace had to be a limited certain amount. Micheline design their tiers to have that area increase as the tire wore down. Hence they were banned.

FAlso, if I remember correctly, Ferrari where fined in Austria 2002 for improper podium protocol not team orders.

That was because at the time there was no rule forbidding team orders. Up until that point is was seen as a fair racing strategy to have the second drive give up the win or a points finish for the number one. Schumi Pushed Rubins onto the top step so hence the fine. If you read the April Issue of F1 Raicing they have a great article about some of the most famous team order incidents. All of whitch were seen as fair and just until Austria 02. And even now team orders are blatently obvious they are just not talked about so the FIA does nothing about them.

Also as far as I can tell, Ferrari never protested the bridge wing because.

Well teams have protested it, including Ferrari and now The FIA had mandated a strut to keep it in place because other then Ferrari, more teams have started to protest

Also, if you look at the 2005 tyre rule, it actually made the end of grand prix more interesting, yet it was binned after only 1 season... Why? because Ferrari could not make their car work with it.

No, The rule was changed because of Indy 05. And Because it was a safety hazard. there were a number of big failures because of the rule change, biggest being Kimi in Germany that year.

However, from a sporting POV, it is debatable whether ferrari get preferential treatment there, but it is obvious that Max has some bias towards them, his omissions of them being \"special\" ETC and his anger that Alonso and Hamilton didnt get thrown out of the 2007 WDC made that plainly obvious.

I have no disrespect for him, I just do not think he would be right for the job because of his prior high-level involvement with another team. As I said, I believe it should be someone with no prior involvement.

I am guessing you met admission. if you remember, the reason he said they were "special" was because they have taken part in every F1 season since the start, all he ment was that from a sporting haratige, Ferrari are special because no other team can say they have spent anywhere near as long a time at the top of the racing world. Its just like he Said Kubi was special because of him being from Poland, opening up that market. Now I doubt you are going to say Kubi is getting Preferential treatment from the FIA. And Mosley even said Hamilton was special and you clearly believe everybody is out to get him.

If you read what Mosley said about the ruling was that he found it a disappointment that the FIA would say that Meclaren broke the rules but because they did not use the data that was the reason for the rule breaking, was not going to get punished. If you want to call anything favoritism that is it. Saying you broke the rules but because you broke them in a certain way you don't get punished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...