Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Forum rules
Please read the forum rules
Post Reply
User avatar
Vlad
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 1:31 pm
Location: USA

Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by Vlad »

One week to go and I have bad news...

Those idiots from F1 is setting it to fail from the start. The qualification will be illegal. The new half-assed rules clearly say that qualification should run from 14:00 to 15:00. So Australian GP quali from 17:00 to 18:00 will be illegal and opens wide gates for all sorts of legal action...

I know somebody probably wrote these "rules" on a TP while taking a dump. But nobody is proof reading this? Seriously, those idiots in FIA are making millions while being so incompetent. Irritates me. I've seen that thing once - I immediately knew there is a problem with their "rules" contradicting Australian time table. And that's not even my job. They have only one thing to do, and get paid a lot - and they can't do it. It's 3 days to race weekend and they still don't see the problem. On top of the fact that only brain damaged idiot will put set times into a global race rules... Official FIA documents on their website still say:

33.1 The qualifying practice session will take place on the day before the race from 14.00 to 15.00.
The session will be run as follows :
a) From 14.00 to 14.16 (Q1) all cars will be permitted on the track. Seven minutes after the start of the session the driver last in the classification will be eliminated and will no longer be timed, he must then return to the pit lane and may take no further part in the qualifying practice session. The same procedure will then apply after 8m30s, 10m0s, 11m30s, 13m0s and 14m30s leaving sixteen cars eligible to continue. At the end of the session all drivers on the track may complete the lap they are on and, once these final laps have been completed, the driver last in the classification may take no further part in the qualifying practice session.
Lap times achieved by the fifteen remaining cars will then be deleted.
b) From 14.24 to 14.39 (Q2) the fifteen remaining cars will be permitted on the track. Six minutes after the start of the session the driver last in the classification will be eliminated and will no longer be timed, he must then return to the pit lane and may take no further part in the qualifying practice session. The same procedure will then apply after 7m30s, 9m0s, 10m30s, 12m0s and 13m30s leaving nine cars eligible to continue. At the end of the session all drivers on the track may complete the lap they are on and, once these final laps have been completed, the driver last in the classification may take no further part in the qualifying practice session.
Lap times achieved by the eight remaining cars will then be deleted.
c) From 14.46 to 15.00 (Q3) the eight remaining cars will be permitted on the track. Five minutes after the start of the session the driver last in the classification will be eliminated and will no longer be timed, he must then return to the pit lane and may take no further part in the qualifying practice session. The same procedure will then apply after 6m30s, 8m0s, 9m30s, 11m0s and 12m30s leaving two cars eligible to continue. At the end of the session any driver on the track may complete the lap he is on and, once any final lap has been completed, the overall classification will be established. :-((
Kimi is the One!
T-Design9.com

User avatar
Vlad
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 1:31 pm
Location: USA

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by Vlad »

So if I was one of the back runners I'd immediately protest all the results of qualifying, referring to F1 rules.

I still remember how those FIA idiots robbed me of money and entertainment by refusing to introduce a chicane at Indiy GP in 2005. Because "rules can't be bent". I wonder if they'll bend them now?
Kimi is the One!
T-Design9.com

User avatar
Black_Flag_11
Posts: 8034
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by Black_Flag_11 »

FIA response:

If you look at the wording of the rules we didn't actually specify where in the world it had to be 14:00 :-P

HS Thompson
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:41 am

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by HS Thompson »

Formula One continues to swirl the drain.

User avatar
Vlad
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 1:31 pm
Location: USA

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by Vlad »

Black_Flag_11 wrote:FIA response:

If you look at the wording of the rules we didn't actually specify where in the world it had to be 14:00 :-P


according to this, it'll be Krasnoyarsk, Russia time than.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _Zones.png
Kimi is the One!
T-Design9.com

User avatar
Balibari
Posts: 3226
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by Balibari »

This is how the FIA works. The regs are kept vague, contradictory and inconsistent so they can be interpreted however the FIA wants.

Think about this: we know the intention is for the guy eliminated first to start last, and so on up through the pack. If you read these regs they describe the process of elimination... but where do they say that process has any bearing on the grid? The closest it comes is the last sentence:

...once any final lap has been completed, the overall classification will be established.


That can be interpreted almost any way you like. It says, 'the overall classification will be established', it doesn't say, 'the overall classification will have been established'. Their wording makes it unclear whether grid order has been established, or whether it's ready to be established. My interpretation is that the FIA haven't even committed to the criteria that will be used to establish it.

I'm not saying the FIA have some grand scheme to do something different, just that they like to leave themselves wiggle room in case they want to step in and dictate something.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus

User avatar
Balibari
Posts: 3226
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by Balibari »

Vlad wrote:So if I was one of the back runners I'd immediately protest all the results of qualifying, referring to F1 rules.

I still remember how those FIA idiots robbed me of money and entertainment by refusing to introduce a chicane at Indiy GP in 2005. Because "rules can't be bent". I wonder if they'll bend them now?

To be fair that wasn't the FIA's fault. This could be the first time I've defended Mosley but he had no choice. Aside from the chicane and similar ideas being unfair on the Bridgestone teams who would effectively have been penalised for having the right tyres, the FIA can't be expected to ignore their own safety procedures and leave themselves open to a potential lawsuit in the event of an accident. Certainly not in the most litigious country they visit anyway. The Michelin teams could have agreed to a speed limit or to running through the pits, but they wouldn't do so without the Bridgestone teams being subjected too. It would have looked and been stupid, granted, but (apart from just racing with crossed fingers) they were the only ways all the cars were ever going to start.

(I admit it's probably easier to think like that because I wasn't there!)
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus

User avatar
Vlad
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 1:31 pm
Location: USA

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by Vlad »

Balibari wrote:
Vlad wrote:So if I was one of the back runners I'd immediately protest all the results of qualifying, referring to F1 rules.

I still remember how those FIA idiots robbed me of money and entertainment by refusing to introduce a chicane at Indiy GP in 2005. Because "rules can't be bent". I wonder if they'll bend them now?

To be fair that wasn't the FIA's fault. This could be the first time I've defended Mosley but he had no choice. Aside from the chicane and similar ideas being unfair on the Bridgestone teams who would effectively have been penalised for having the right tyres, the FIA can't be expected to ignore their own safety procedures and leave themselves open to a potential lawsuit in the event of an accident. Certainly not in the most litigious country they visit anyway. The Michelin teams could have agreed to a speed limit or to running through the pits, but they wouldn't do so without the Bridgestone teams being subjected too. It would have looked and been stupid, granted, but (apart from just racing with crossed fingers) they were the only ways all the cars were ever going to start.

(I admit it's probably easier to think like that because I wasn't there!)


I was there, and all that needed to be done is one simple decree to make the race happen. Tires were good up to X mph, lessen the track speed below X and you good to go. May be compensate other teams. May be not. FIA runs the show, so run it, for x sake. Much less dramatic measures than this quali format changes they keep doing. But they did not care for the 100 000 funs at all back then. Each paing at least a grand to come to the race... And that's doomed Indy USGP.
Kimi is the One!
T-Design9.com

wolfticket
Posts: 1433
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by wolfticket »

===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===

User avatar
Black_Flag_11
Posts: 8034
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by Black_Flag_11 »

Balibari wrote:This is how the FIA works. The regs are kept vague, contradictory and inconsistent so they can be interpreted however the FIA wants.

Think about this: we know the intention is for the guy eliminated first to start last, and so on up through the pack. If you read these regs they describe the process of elimination... but where do they say that process has any bearing on the grid? The closest it comes is the last sentence:

...once any final lap has been completed, the overall classification will be established.


That can be interpreted almost any way you like. It says, 'the overall classification will be established', it doesn't say, 'the overall classification will have been established'. Their wording makes it unclear whether grid order has been established, or whether it's ready to be established. My interpretation is that the FIA haven't even committed to the criteria that will be used to establish it.

I'm not saying the FIA have some grand scheme to do something different, just that they like to leave themselves wiggle room in case they want to step in and dictate something.

Given that Bernie was apparently pushing hard for the championship leader/previous winner to have time added on its not hard to see why.

stratos
Posts: 320
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 2:23 pm

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by stratos »

I'm pretty sure that if you read all the regulations you will find that the race director and/or clerk of the course can modify the timetable.

User avatar
Balibari
Posts: 3226
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by Balibari »

Vlad wrote:
Balibari wrote:
Vlad wrote:So if I was one of the back runners I'd immediately protest all the results of qualifying, referring to F1 rules.

I still remember how those FIA idiots robbed me of money and entertainment by refusing to introduce a chicane at Indiy GP in 2005. Because "rules can't be bent". I wonder if they'll bend them now?

To be fair that wasn't the FIA's fault. This could be the first time I've defended Mosley but he had no choice. Aside from the chicane and similar ideas being unfair on the Bridgestone teams who would effectively have been penalised for having the right tyres, the FIA can't be expected to ignore their own safety procedures and leave themselves open to a potential lawsuit in the event of an accident. Certainly not in the most litigious country they visit anyway. The Michelin teams could have agreed to a speed limit or to running through the pits, but they wouldn't do so without the Bridgestone teams being subjected too. It would have looked and been stupid, granted, but (apart from just racing with crossed fingers) they were the only ways all the cars were ever going to start.

(I admit it's probably easier to think like that because I wasn't there!)


I was there, and all that needed to be done is one simple decree to make the race happen. Tires were good up to X mph, lessen the track speed below X and you good to go. May be compensate other teams. May be not. FIA runs the show, so run it, for x sake. Much less dramatic measures than this quali format changes they keep doing. But they did not care for the 100 000 funs at all back then. Each paing at least a grand to come to the race... And that's doomed Indy USGP.

From the point of view of the fans I agree. But even if the FIA had the power to impose a maximum speed limit (Ferrari said they didn't but who knows), and even if it could have been reliably gauged and enforced, they couldn't sanction a race with a speed limit without being legally vulnerable. Their position relies on them following their procedures to the letter, technically they wouldn't even have been racing on a sanctioned circuit let alone hundreds of other points a good lawyer could doubtless nail them on. I don't think it's about the FIA not caring, they really had no choice.

The teams could have run a non-championship race without FIA sanction but nobody wanted to... because they may have been legally vulnerable in the event of an accident. And because Bridgestone teams refused to adhere to a chicane anyway, they said only the michelin teams should have to, which is kind of fair enough (though clearly impractical and dangerous). Bridgestone's tyres were slower than usual relative to Michelin because they were tough enough to do the job. It's like turning up to a rally in a Formula car and refusing to take part unless it's moved to a road. The event can at least take place, but everyone who has to do it in a proper rally car would be at a serious disadvantage, simply because they brought the right equipment.

For anything to happen the Michelin teams would have had to agree to one of two options that would have disadvantaged them against the Bridgestone teams (which seems fairer than the other way round seeing as it was a Michelin error), and they refused to do that.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus

mikeyg123
Posts: 17880
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by mikeyg123 »

No way could the FIA allow the race to run on a non sanctioned circuit in the world's most litigious country. Blame Michelin not the FIA for that one.

User avatar
moby
Posts: 8072
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by moby »

Act of God.



Bernie said it was so

DaveStebbins
Posts: 680
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:09 pm

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by DaveStebbins »

Balibari wrote:This is how the FIA works. The regs are kept vague, contradictory and inconsistent so they can be interpreted however the FIA wants.

Think about this: we know the intention is for the guy eliminated first to start last, and so on up through the pack. If you read these regs they describe the process of elimination... but where do they say that process has any bearing on the grid? The closest it comes is the last sentence:

...once any final lap has been completed, the overall classification will be established.


That can be interpreted almost any way you like. It says, 'the overall classification will be established', it doesn't say, 'the overall classification will have been established'. Their wording makes it unclear whether grid order has been established, or whether it's ready to be established. My interpretation is that the FIA haven't even committed to the criteria that will be used to establish it.

I'm not saying the FIA have some grand scheme to do something different, just that they like to leave themselves wiggle room in case they want to step in and dictate something.

I'm pretty sure that clause is there to allow them to add any penalties for things like engine/gearbox changes, or penalties for holding up someone during qualy, or other infractions.

Zoue
Posts: 25158
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by Zoue »

Balibari wrote:
Vlad wrote:
Balibari wrote:
Vlad wrote:So if I was one of the back runners I'd immediately protest all the results of qualifying, referring to F1 rules.

I still remember how those FIA idiots robbed me of money and entertainment by refusing to introduce a chicane at Indiy GP in 2005. Because "rules can't be bent". I wonder if they'll bend them now?

To be fair that wasn't the FIA's fault. This could be the first time I've defended Mosley but he had no choice. Aside from the chicane and similar ideas being unfair on the Bridgestone teams who would effectively have been penalised for having the right tyres, the FIA can't be expected to ignore their own safety procedures and leave themselves open to a potential lawsuit in the event of an accident. Certainly not in the most litigious country they visit anyway. The Michelin teams could have agreed to a speed limit or to running through the pits, but they wouldn't do so without the Bridgestone teams being subjected too. It would have looked and been stupid, granted, but (apart from just racing with crossed fingers) they were the only ways all the cars were ever going to start.

(I admit it's probably easier to think like that because I wasn't there!)


I was there, and all that needed to be done is one simple decree to make the race happen. Tires were good up to X mph, lessen the track speed below X and you good to go. May be compensate other teams. May be not. FIA runs the show, so run it, for x sake. Much less dramatic measures than this quali format changes they keep doing. But they did not care for the 100 000 funs at all back then. Each paing at least a grand to come to the race... And that's doomed Indy USGP.

From the point of view of the fans I agree. But even if the FIA had the power to impose a maximum speed limit (Ferrari said they didn't but who knows), and even if it could have been reliably gauged and enforced, they couldn't sanction a race with a speed limit without being legally vulnerable. Their position relies on them following their procedures to the letter, technically they wouldn't even have been racing on a sanctioned circuit let alone hundreds of other points a good lawyer could doubtless nail them on. I don't think it's about the FIA not caring, they really had no choice.

The teams could have run a non-championship race without FIA sanction but nobody wanted to... because they may have been legally vulnerable in the event of an accident. And because Bridgestone teams refused to adhere to a chicane anyway, they said only the michelin teams should have to, which is kind of fair enough (though clearly impractical and dangerous). Bridgestone's tyres were slower than usual relative to Michelin because they were tough enough to do the job. It's like turning up to a rally in a Formula car and refusing to take part unless it's moved to a road. The event can at least take place, but everyone who has to do it in a proper rally car would be at a serious disadvantage, simply because they brought the right equipment.

For anything to happen the Michelin teams would have had to agree to one of two options that would have disadvantaged them against the Bridgestone teams (which seems fairer than the other way round seeing as it was a Michelin error), and they refused to do that.

The above isn't quite true according to Paul Stoddart's account: it seems all the teams except Ferrari agreed to compromise but Mosley threatened not just the US GP but all FIA sanctioned motorsport in the US if anything other than a normal race was run.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns15087.html

Ultimately the error was Michelin's, but the lack of any kind of race that day was at least in part due to Mosley's intransigence.

User avatar
Vlad
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 1:31 pm
Location: USA

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by Vlad »

Exactly. Everybody wanted to race. FIA/Max said "rules can't be bent, I'm the man!". Good thing that pervert is out of the picture now. And they'll be bending rules come Saturday :)
Kimi is the One!
T-Design9.com

_Rogue_
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:56 pm
Location: Norwich

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by _Rogue_ »

If i remember correctly there was also discussion at the time that the surface had been diamond cut which changed the characteristics to the loading of the tyres. It appeared at the time that Bridgestone had data on this issue as it supplied tyres to several teams that had raced at Indy since the cutting had taken place which Michelin were not privy to.
As previously mentioned it did seem more to do with Mosely's decisions and Ferrari refusing to waver from their stance (and who can blame a team being offered the race win on a plate) All in all not a great day for F1

User avatar
nixxxon
Posts: 3767
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:08 pm

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by nixxxon »

Lol. Nice try buddy, but when you write the rules you can do what you want, you dont really need to break them, just to modify them as you wish.
Last edited by nixxxon on Wed Mar 16, 2016 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

F1Oz
Posts: 944
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:49 am

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by F1Oz »

It should be 1400-1500 - it's just you Europeans who keep mucking up the times so it's easier for YOU to watch ;) (where have all the emoji gone from PF1?)

User avatar
ShaneM
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 6:34 pm

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by ShaneM »

wolfticket wrote:The FIA's response:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Image
http://associatesmind.com/2013/03/08/who-owns-the-law/

User avatar
2fast
Posts: 633
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 2:46 am

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by 2fast »

Qualifying session for Singapore GP is at 21:00-22:00, while for Abu Dhabi GP is at 17:00-18:00.

So does it mean that both qualifying sessions are also illegal? :?
too fast to slow down

User avatar
mds
Posts: 11443
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by mds »

Vlad wrote:And they'll be bending rules come Saturday :)


Nah I don't think so.

15.3 The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with the race director. The race
director shall have overriding authority in the following matters
and the clerk of the course
may give orders in respect of them only with his express agreement :
a) The control of practice and the race, adherence to the timetable and, if he deems it
necessary, the making of any proposal to the stewards to modify the timetable in
accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
Go Vandoorne :( - Verstappen - Vettel!

ALESI
Posts: 2418
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by ALESI »

Rules can't be bent... and yet in Brazil in 2003 (I think) the FIA decided in their infinite wisdom that the teams could only bring one kind of wet tyre to the race. One of the suppliers brought a full wet (which given this was Brazil was not a bad idea) and the other an intermediate. And of course it rained heavily, so the race was delayed to facilitate the teams on the intermediate (thus disadvantaging the teams on the full wet) how was this in any way fair?

I mean it was a STUPID rule in the first place, but still. Would they have stopped the race when all the inter runners span off, or would they have let the ones on the full wet continue and finish?
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

Teddy007
Posts: 1079
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by Teddy007 »

wolfticket wrote:The FIA's response:

Image
http://associatesmind.com/2013/03/08/who-owns-the-law/


This This and THIS

Made me chuckle, I don't blame the FIA though they are simply giving in to poor sighted fan pressure. Fans are constantly looking for changes and improvements yet have to also give in to teams and drivers.

The fans demand changes all the time yet offer zero solutions that are realistic. The only change I have ever made and seen is the "driving" rules, simply let the drivers drive, if they make mistakes and collide don't punish them. But that wont fix the dominance of one to two teams nearly every season.

User avatar
Balibari
Posts: 3226
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by Balibari »

Zoue wrote:
Balibari wrote:
Vlad wrote:
Balibari wrote:
Vlad wrote:So if I was one of the back runners I'd immediately protest all the results of qualifying, referring to F1 rules.

I still remember how those FIA idiots robbed me of money and entertainment by refusing to introduce a chicane at Indiy GP in 2005. Because "rules can't be bent". I wonder if they'll bend them now?

To be fair that wasn't the FIA's fault. This could be the first time I've defended Mosley but he had no choice. Aside from the chicane and similar ideas being unfair on the Bridgestone teams who would effectively have been penalised for having the right tyres, the FIA can't be expected to ignore their own safety procedures and leave themselves open to a potential lawsuit in the event of an accident. Certainly not in the most litigious country they visit anyway. The Michelin teams could have agreed to a speed limit or to running through the pits, but they wouldn't do so without the Bridgestone teams being subjected too. It would have looked and been stupid, granted, but (apart from just racing with crossed fingers) they were the only ways all the cars were ever going to start.

(I admit it's probably easier to think like that because I wasn't there!)


I was there, and all that needed to be done is one simple decree to make the race happen. Tires were good up to X mph, lessen the track speed below X and you good to go. May be compensate other teams. May be not. FIA runs the show, so run it, for x sake. Much less dramatic measures than this quali format changes they keep doing. But they did not care for the 100 000 funs at all back then. Each paing at least a grand to come to the race... And that's doomed Indy USGP.

From the point of view of the fans I agree. But even if the FIA had the power to impose a maximum speed limit (Ferrari said they didn't but who knows), and even if it could have been reliably gauged and enforced, they couldn't sanction a race with a speed limit without being legally vulnerable. Their position relies on them following their procedures to the letter, technically they wouldn't even have been racing on a sanctioned circuit let alone hundreds of other points a good lawyer could doubtless nail them on. I don't think it's about the FIA not caring, they really had no choice.

The teams could have run a non-championship race without FIA sanction but nobody wanted to... because they may have been legally vulnerable in the event of an accident. And because Bridgestone teams refused to adhere to a chicane anyway, they said only the michelin teams should have to, which is kind of fair enough (though clearly impractical and dangerous). Bridgestone's tyres were slower than usual relative to Michelin because they were tough enough to do the job. It's like turning up to a rally in a Formula car and refusing to take part unless it's moved to a road. The event can at least take place, but everyone who has to do it in a proper rally car would be at a serious disadvantage, simply because they brought the right equipment.

For anything to happen the Michelin teams would have had to agree to one of two options that would have disadvantaged them against the Bridgestone teams (which seems fairer than the other way round seeing as it was a Michelin error), and they refused to do that.

The above isn't quite true according to Paul Stoddart's account: it seems all the teams except Ferrari agreed to compromise but Mosley threatened not just the US GP but all FIA sanctioned motorsport in the US if anything other than a normal race was run.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns15087.html

Ultimately the error was Michelin's, but the lack of any kind of race that day was at least in part due to Mosley's intransigence.

I don't want to go off on a tangent from a tangent but this is all politics. Once the FIA washed their hands of the chicane the teams faced being legally responsible for the race and dropped the idea. I've heard that multiple times and it's logical. Beyond Todt and Mosley, Stoddard doesn't explain who was for the idea and, crucially, when. He's not going to make himself look bad when his arch enemies Todt and Mosley are more to blame. We can't rely on Stoddard for unbiased truth but nor can we rely on Mosley, who has straight up lied about this multiple times if it's true that he threatened all FIA sanctioned events in the US. Even though it's a clearly ridiculous and impossible threat, I can believe he made it, but I don't know if it made any difference. I can also believe that Todt would have vetoed any scenario the Michelin teams came up with.

As you say, ultimately the error was Michelin's. And I can believe Mosley was being intransigent. But with hindsight I don't know what anyone could have done. The matter of legal responsibility seems like a complete impasse.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus

Fiki
Posts: 8054
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by Fiki »

F1Oz wrote:It should be 1400-1500 - it's just you Europeans who keep mucking up the times so it's easier for YOU to watch ;) (where have all the emoji gone from PF1?)
Not at all! There used to be a time when I could watch the Oz GP, go back to bed for a few hours, and actually have a Sunday afternoon during which I could do something pleasant or useful. I remember driving to work early, when they started to push the hours back, to watch it there before breakfast and work.

Thinking about it, I wonder whether shifting "foreign" races to "accommodate" the European viewer hasn't helped the drop in viewer numbers.
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi

User avatar
mcdo
Posts: 10289
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by mcdo »

Fiki wrote:
F1Oz wrote:It should be 1400-1500 - it's just you Europeans who keep mucking up the times so it's easier for YOU to watch ;) (where have all the emoji gone from PF1?)
Not at all! There used to be a time when I could watch the Oz GP, go back to bed for a few hours, and actually have a Sunday afternoon during which I could do something pleasant or useful. I remember driving to work early, when they started to push the hours back, to watch it there before breakfast and work.

Thinking about it, I wonder whether shifting "foreign" races to "accommodate" the European viewer hasn't helped the drop in viewer numbers.

I much preferred getting up at 2 or 3am to watch the Australian or Japanese GPs or whatever. It made it seem like a bigger event after going to all of that trouble.
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost

User avatar
moby
Posts: 8072
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by moby »

Fiki wrote:
F1Oz wrote:It should be 1400-1500 - it's just you Europeans who keep mucking up the times so it's easier for YOU to watch ;) (where have all the emoji gone from PF1?)
Not at all! There used to be a time when I could watch the Oz GP, go back to bed for a few hours, and actually have a Sunday afternoon during which I could do something pleasant or useful. I remember driving to work early, when they started to push the hours back, to watch it there before breakfast and work.

Thinking about it, I wonder whether shifting "foreign" races to "accommodate" the European viewer hasn't helped the drop in viewer numbers.


Dont know that its to accommodate the European viewer, or to have adverts aired at times people will pay for them

User avatar
Balibari
Posts: 3226
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by Balibari »

Fiki wrote:
F1Oz wrote:It should be 1400-1500 - it's just you Europeans who keep mucking up the times so it's easier for YOU to watch ;) (where have all the emoji gone from PF1?)
Not at all! There used to be a time when I could watch the Oz GP, go back to bed for a few hours, and actually have a Sunday afternoon during which I could do something pleasant or useful. I remember driving to work early, when they started to push the hours back, to watch it there before breakfast and work.

Thinking about it, I wonder whether shifting "foreign" races to "accommodate" the European viewer hasn't helped the drop in viewer numbers.

I'm not a morning person so I used to stay up. Now it's on too 'late' so I record it and watch it in the afternoon. Technically I'm still watching it but as it's recorded I inevitably fast forward through a lot of the coverage. All in all the later start time means I'm less engaged now, not more, even though I live in Europe.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus

pc27b
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:17 pm
Location: illinois

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by pc27b »

Vlad wrote:
Balibari wrote:
Vlad wrote:So if I was one of the back runners I'd immediately protest all the results of qualifying, referring to F1 rules.

I still remember how those FIA idiots robbed me of money and entertainment by refusing to introduce a chicane at Indiy GP in 2005. Because "rules can't be bent". I wonder if they'll bend them now?

To be fair that wasn't the FIA's fault. This could be the first time I've defended Mosley but he had no choice. Aside from the chicane and similar ideas being unfair on the Bridgestone teams who would effectively have been penalised for having the right tyres, the FIA can't be expected to ignore their own safety procedures and leave themselves open to a potential lawsuit in the event of an accident. Certainly not in the most litigious country they visit anyway. The Michelin teams could have agreed to a speed limit or to running through the pits, but they wouldn't do so without the Bridgestone teams being subjected too. It would have looked and been stupid, granted, but (apart from just racing with crossed fingers) they were the only ways all the cars were ever going to start.

(I admit it's probably easier to think like that because I wasn't there!)


I was there, and all that needed to be done is one simple decree to make the race happen. Tires were good up to X mph, lessen the track speed below X and you good to go. May be compensate other teams. May be not. FIA runs the show, so run it, for x sake. Much less dramatic measures than this quali format changes they keep doing. But they did not care for the 100 000 funs at all back then. Each paing at least a grand to come to the race... And that's doomed Indy USGP.


i didn't spend anywhere near a grand to go to that "race" it was a farce, but i got a refund of more than i paid for the ticket. now it's just an interesting story to tell

User avatar
Vlad
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 1:31 pm
Location: USA

Re: Australian GP qualification is ILLEGAL

Post by Vlad »

pc27b wrote:i didn't spend anywhere near a grand to go to that "race" it was a farce, but i got a refund of more than i paid for the ticket. now it's just an interesting story to tell


If you are not from around - it's a grand at least. Race tickets (>100) + hotel on a race weekend (>200, >300 for downtown/night)+ air tickets(>400 probably >5-600) or other transportations + meals (depends, but can esily be >200)... Per person. If you are flying in, and staying two days - it's way more than a grand.

That year I also talked 2 of my friends coming with me. Totally new to F1. As you can guess, they didn't become fans. Weren't impressed at all. Coming to a race, spending all that money and not getting the race - if F1 fans can't understand it, how could newbies? So pretty sad story to tell.
Kimi is the One!
T-Design9.com

Post Reply