[Rules] The FIA - what's occurring there?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

in fairness, how does the present differ from f1's historically long association with big oil, big tobacco, big alcohol or any number of other less than desirable actors who have used sport to gain visibility and prestige?

the need for money to fund racing (or play sport in general) and the need to connect with those who have that money has always been a morally problematic relationship.

that doesnt mean i dont think people should speak out against it. to the contrary, we have always needed more of this not less!

The difference is there is a direct connection with some of these countries now hosting GPs and human rights abuses.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The difference is there is a direct connection with some of these countries now hosting GPs and human rights abuses.

There has been a direct connection with the majority of countries that have hosted GPs throughout the history of the sport. Many people choose to ignore those cases though because it is an inconvenient truth.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Many people choose to ignore those cases though because it is an inconvenient truth.

and for me, being honest, i do choose to ignore those truths because they are inconvienent.

i like sports a lot and am well aware of how that makes me a hypocrite vis a vis my many beliefs about climate change, overconsumption, human rights, the power that those with money can and should have etc etc.

i can own up to that much at least.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

and for me, being honest, i do choose to ignore those truths because they are inconvienent.

i like sports a lot and am well aware of how that makes me a hypocrite vis a vis my many beliefs about climate change, overconsumption, human rights, the power that those with money can and should have etc etc.

i can own up to that much at least.

to double down on that...this is why its so important that people like Ham or Vettee be allowed to speak on these issues in very public ways during the broadcast.

these messages need to be shoved into the faces of people like me right?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

and for me, being honest, i do choose to ignore those truths because they are inconvienent.

i like sports a lot and am well aware of how that makes me a hypocrite vis a vis my many beliefs about climate change, overconsumption, human rights, the power that those with money can and should have etc etc.

i can own up to that much at least.

Same here. It is the cognitive dissonance problem that is F1. I just try to do the best I can and deal with the internal conflicts. I enjoy the things I like and sometimes hold my nose at other aspects. Is there a point at which I would walk away? For sure, but I don't know exactly where that is just yet.

Richard

[coppice]

I am in the same boat . As a kid , I am ashamed to admit that the South African GP never troubled me , with rampant apartheid and Mandela banged up . I have grown up a lot since and became progressively more disgusted as Ecclestone toadied up to appalling regimes like Putin's Russia (which the stupid old fool still praises) and the slew of medieval absolute monarchs , fat on petro dollars . I hold my nose when I watch GPs there, but am not proud of the fact I still do.

As for this who say international sport and politics don't mix - in a sense they are right , because they are one and the same. Would anybody watch a Russian GP now or one held in Assad's Syria?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

There has been a direct connection with the majority of countries that have hosted GPs throughout the history of the sport. Many people choose to ignore those cases though because it is an inconvenient truth.

Which of those countries are still hosting GPs?

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Which of those countries are still hosting GPs?

All of them, just because you draw a line and say THIS is too much doesn't mean every one of the countries hosting a GP has human rights and human trafficking problems. Many have just decided that those OVER THERE are wrong and ignore the 75 guys at Home Depot each morning.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Which of those countries are still hosting GPs?

The question is how to measure. For many it can be a subjective thing. There are groups who try to make objective measurements. Below is data from https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores (which is a "freedom" score and not directly about "human right abuses") for countries that are hosting 2023 F1 races. I assume a 100 is a perfect score. List is sorted by total score.

Country	Total Score	Political	Civil
Canada	98	40	58
Netherlands	97	39	58
Belgium	96	39	57
Japan	96	40	56
Australia	95	39	56
Austria	93	37	56
United Kingdom	93	39	54
Italy	90	36	54
Spain	90	37	53
Monaco	84	27	57
United States	83	32	51
Brazil	73	31	42
Hungary	69	26	43
Mexico	60	27	33
Singapore	47	19	28
Qatar	25	7	18
United Arab Emirates	17	5	12
Bahrain	12	2	10
Azerbaijan	9	2	7
Saudi Arabia	7	1	6

Make your own conclusions as to where you see a precipitous drop in score.

Richard

PS: Top three are Finland, Norway, and Sweden at "100" and bottom three are South Sudan, Syria, and Tibet at "1"

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

All of them, just because you draw a line and say THIS is too much doesn't mean every one of the countries hosting a GP has human rights and human trafficking problems. Many have just decided that those OVER THERE are wrong and ignore the 75 guys at Home Depot each morning.

Is it all of them, or a majority?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Is it all of them, or a majority?

I believe that most, if not all, of these countries have skeletons in their cupboards, but a lot have ceased those abhorrent activities and most of them did so a long, long time ago. Regretfully, a number of the leaders from some on that list continue to behave in a way that I find to not be in a way that modern countries should act.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Is it all of them, or a majority?

I said above the question is "how to measure", but also "where is the line" is problematic as well.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I said above the question is "how to measure", but also "where is the line" is problematic as well.

Richard

After reading this post, I think it comes across as snarky when it is not meant to be. I was trying to say I fell short in my earlier post... I called out one thing (how to measure) when I should have called out two things (how to measure and where is the line).

Richard

[Tourer]

The FIA has refined the system for F1 drivers accruing penalty points that could lead to loss of licence.

On the face of it, seems logical and a good move, hopefully plays out as planned.

[Aysedasi]

Agreed. To get a race ban for a minor track limits offence that took you up to the 12 would have been pretty absurd.

[Moneyseeker]

Another fiasco from the FIA who persist in running the regulations side of a global sport, like a school sports day.

Time for a major appraisal on decisions made during races, again!

[PhilipR]

Is it any cannot touch the car or all cannot touch the car whilst serving a penalty?

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by PhilipR

Is it any cannot touch the car or all cannot touch the car whilst serving a penalty?

Neither. It is (I believe) you cannot work on the car while the penalty is being served. I stand to be corrected but I don't think the regs say anything about just 'touching' the car. You'd like to think that common sense would enable a differentiation to be made between touching the car and working on it, but it seems not. What if a tyre man slips and grabs the rear wing to prevent himself from falling. Is that working on the car? We all know it isn't. I would also say a jackman who has the jack ready to lift the car isn't working on the car, he is preparing to work on the car.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Neither. It is (I believe) you cannot work on the car while the penalty is being served. I stand to be corrected but I don't think the regs say anything about just 'touching' the car. You'd like to think that common sense would enable a differentiation to be made between touching the car and working on it, but it seems not. What if a tyre man slips and grabs the rear wing to prevent himself from falling. Is that working on the car? We all know it isn't. I would also say a jackman who has the jack ready to lift the car isn't working on the car, he is preparing to work on the car.

I agree entirely with this, the problem being is that (especially as this is Formula One where every rule is pushed by the teams to create the maximum advantage) it that there has to be a very precise description of where the not working on the car/working on the car line is drawn. Taking the jack as one example, would it be permissible for it to be a) In position below the car, but not raised in any way, b)Raised and not quite touching (hard to police) the car, or c) Raised to the car but with zero force applied to lift the car? Then, the same consideration has to be applied to all of the other operations, wheel guns, wing adjustments, nose changers and so on, so not easy. Or should everyone (and equipment) be a set distance away from the car until the time penalty has elapsed (again a very difficult situation to police).
I am interested to see how this is tightened up or clarified, but at least we have something to discuss in the quiet times before the next race!

[chillibowl]

Question…Where do they draw the line between touching and working when the car is under park ferme regulations?

The cars have to be moved, stopped, held in place so there must be some touching allowed so there is on some level some common sense interpretations of the rules here?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Question…Where do they draw the line between touching and working when the car is under park ferme regulations?

The cars have to be moved, stopped, held in place so there must be some touching allowed so there is on some level some common sense interpretations of the rules here?

I do believe that they pretty well nailed down the permissible actions during park ferme in previous years. The teams are permitted to do certain things on the cars, whilst they have to seek authorisation to carry out other work which may then carry a time penalty.

What puzzles me somewhat is that each garage has, or certainly used to have, an official FIA observer permanently placed therein, and it should have been easy for Aston to ask or be told what they could or could not do under those circumstances because he should know the rules intimately.

[Greem]

The simple solution to "not working on the car" is to stop the teams self-policing their penalties, and bring back the stop/go box that's used in club racing. Simple, uncomplicated, nobody near the car except the person doing the timing. It could even be automated - red light, car stops, timer starts, timer expires, green light.

So simple that it obviously has no place in F1.

[Richard C]

I watched this video earlier and I think it is well done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhRdmmJEeeQ

A few takeaways.

1. It sounds like there has been a general agreement (maybe some type of gentlemen's agreement that is not written in the rules?) in which it has been allowed for the front jack to touch the car when serving a penalty (see more on my thoughts on this below)

2. The argument for the front jack touching is that it "used to guide the car's position into the pit box".

3. Evidence to support AM putting the rear jack in position seems be based upon the current "agreement" that the front jack can touch the car. With there being no current agreement on front vs. rear with one being more allowable than the other. In other words, if the front jack can touch, why not the rear?

4. This has been tried to be resolved, but apparently there is no "agreement" on the solution.

5. An interesting comment in the video around 5:08 "shouldn't expect anything else from teams as they are ruthless entities that will not hesitate to break from established convention if it serves a competitive purpose" In short, the rules and/or enforcement are poor, so teams take advantage of it.

As to the topic of "work on" vs "touch". It is interesting that we are getting into semantics. I have looked up some definitions for "work" and most call out a version of "effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result" I would say that positioning the jack in the right place fits that description. As I mentioned in the race thread, I think there is a massive slippery slope if positioning tools is allowed. Why not allow them to place guns on tire nuts? Why not allow hands on tires to "prepare" for their removal? What if debris from another car or a visor tear off is stuck in an intake. Can I remove it without "touching" or "working on" the car (the debris is not from OUR car.. how am I "working on" our car if I am touching parts from someone else?)

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

What if a tyre man slips and grabs the rear wing to prevent himself from falling. Is that working on the car? We all know it isn't. I would also say a jackman who has the jack ready to lift the car isn't working on the car, he is preparing to work on the car.

How would I solve this problem? I think "touching" might be too strict for the example mentioned above. I actually think "work on" is appropriate basis of the rule language, but I would add some phraseology around non-allowance of "actions with a competitive purpose" and trying to perform a quick pitstop and positioning items that are "touching" the car is done for competitive purpose. So what would be a punishable offense? Having a jack touching the car and ready to lift, putting a wheel gun on the nut, removing debris, but not "touching the car" all would count as a rule violation. Tripping and briefly touching the car would not count as a violation.

And when explaining the regulation I would call out primary purposes of actions. For example.. the front jack. Is the primary purpose of the jack to guide the car in or lift the car to allow removal of tires? The primary function is clearly to lift the car. Guiding drivers into the pit box is secondary and frankly not required. Drivers are capable of putting a car into a box (well... clearly AM drivers struggle... especially at the start of races but the point stands that they are able to stop in a box). But the argument that front jacks are "special" is bogus IMHO. If serving a penalty the front jack man would be asked to not engage the car as it enters the box. If the driver runs beyond the box and hits the front jack, the jack man would be required to pull the jack away from the car and then re-engage AFTER the penalty is served. Generally speaking there should be visible air between anyone and anything and the car while serving the penalty (non competitive accidental touches notwithstanding)

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

They are trying to minimise the effect of the 5 second penalty, by having it take place when the car comes in for the tyre stop.

Instead of giving Alonso a 5 second penalty, why didn't they give him a drive-thru, which needs to be served within 2 laps of notice being given? The question of whether the car can be touched, or not, would never arise.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

They are trying to minimise the effect of the 5 second penalty, by having it take place when the car comes in for the tyre stop.

Instead of giving Alonso a 5 second penalty, why didn't they give him a drive-thru, which needs to be served within 2 laps of notice being given? The question of whether the car can be touched, or not, would never arise.

That works as well. Someone who knows the details as to when/why they issue drive through vs. serving penalty during pitstop can speak up. I think a drive through is a more harsh penalty as it creates the problem of a slow in/out lap vs. serving the penalty during a pit stop. Would we just not allow any time penalty to be served during a pitstop? All time penalties are stop and go or added at the end of race if there is no time to serve during the race?

Richard