FIA Thread

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
caddy
caddy
2
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:27 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

Mosin123 wrote:
Thu Nov 24, 2022 3:33 pm
caddy wrote:
Thu Nov 24, 2022 1:12 pm
Mosin123 wrote:
Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:40 pm


Horner said Redbull ( Not even its sister team ) Supported Masi.. ill quote "“At the meeting in London, I made it clear that Masi needs more support,” said Horner. “I am disappointed that no one shared this opinion. Red Bull was the only team to support Masi.”"

Ill repeat, No team but Redbull thought Masi did a good job and should be kept on, All agreed the role is to much for just 1 man. but none wanted Masi kept on but Redbull, Even the engineers wanted him gone according to Storey " “Dinner with some F1 engineers this eve. All admit Lewis Hamilton was robbed & Masi should be fired & decision reversed,” Storey tweeted.".

Find me some public statements to change my opinion and i might, but it would have to be good to change it, cause i cant find a single team / person but Redbull / Max who actively supported Masi and all his mess ups during his time as race director.
Teams disagreed on Masi's decision. Nobody proposed or voted (ofcourse there was no voting) for his removal except for Mercedes pushing for it. They are two different things.
Ill take Horners words for it thanks, unless you can provide a link In which a team come out after the important meeting in London ( Which is where it was all concluded and agreed with all the teams and the FIA "Ben Sulayem believed the changes were necessary to ensure public trust in the rules being applied correctly and that they had the unanimous support of F1’s CEO, Stefano Domenicali, and the team principals." ) that followed Horners position?, i dont think you will find any... Because as Horner said, Nobdy wanted Masi to remain on, Not just because of the last race but for a number of incidents during his time.
Horner didn't say other teams are asking for Masi to be fired.

Mosin123
Mosin123
0
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2022 4:03 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

caddy wrote:
Thu Nov 24, 2022 3:59 pm
Mosin123 wrote:
Thu Nov 24, 2022 3:33 pm
caddy wrote:
Thu Nov 24, 2022 1:12 pm
Teams disagreed on Masi's decision. Nobody proposed or voted (ofcourse there was no voting) for his removal except for Mercedes pushing for it. They are two different things.
Ill take Horners words for it thanks, unless you can provide a link In which a team come out after the important meeting in London ( Which is where it was all concluded and agreed with all the teams and the FIA "Ben Sulayem believed the changes were necessary to ensure public trust in the rules being applied correctly and that they had the unanimous support of F1’s CEO, Stefano Domenicali, and the team principals." ) that followed Horners position?, i dont think you will find any... Because as Horner said, Nobdy wanted Masi to remain on, Not just because of the last race but for a number of incidents during his time.
Horner didn't say other teams are asking for Masi to be fired.

No team principle but Horner supported him in remaining in his role, and no one else gave any support for Masi to remain as race director, i would say its pretty obvious they wanted him removed. But make of that as you will, to me its pretty clear.

Its like a vote no?
Those who support = 1
Those who do not support Masi going into the new season as race director and have 3 completely new race directors installed in his place = 9

I am sure you can agree, not supporting him in remain is the same as wanting him removed from his position, if you cant agree, then ill just leave it at that.

caddy
caddy
2
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:27 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

Mosin123 wrote:
Thu Nov 24, 2022 5:08 pm
caddy wrote:
Thu Nov 24, 2022 3:59 pm
Mosin123 wrote:
Thu Nov 24, 2022 3:33 pm


Ill take Horners words for it thanks, unless you can provide a link In which a team come out after the important meeting in London ( Which is where it was all concluded and agreed with all the teams and the FIA "Ben Sulayem believed the changes were necessary to ensure public trust in the rules being applied correctly and that they had the unanimous support of F1’s CEO, Stefano Domenicali, and the team principals." ) that followed Horners position?, i dont think you will find any... Because as Horner said, Nobdy wanted Masi to remain on, Not just because of the last race but for a number of incidents during his time.
Horner didn't say other teams are asking for Masi to be fired.

No team principle but Horner supported him in remaining in his role, and no one else gave any support for Masi to remain as race director, i would say its pretty obvious they wanted him removed. But make of that as you will, to me its pretty clear.

Its like a vote no?
Those who support = 1
Those who do not support Masi going into the new season as race director and have 3 completely new race directors installed in his place = 9

I am sure you can agree, not supporting him in remain is the same as wanting him removed from his position, if you cant agree, then ill just leave it at that.
I didn't read the article the way you did.

https://thesportsrush.com/f1-news-red-b ... s-sacking/
Disappointed to see that no other team voiced support for Masi, says the Red Bull boss
All F1 team principals were present during the FIA’s meeting in London earlier this month. According to Horner, no one voiced their support for Masi in the gathering.

“At the meeting in London, I made it clear that Masi needs more support,” said Horner. “I am disappointed that no one shared this opinion. Red Bull was the only team to support Masi.”
That doesn't say, "FIA wanted to fire Masi and all teams supported it and only Red Bull were against it".

You are taking things completely out of context.

I would like to remind, I didn't come here to talk about who supported or not about Masi's firing. My discussion point was about Shaila's role, Peter Bayer's untimely exit, changes to cost cap rules by Shaila and the leak of cost cap news. If you want to discuss this part, I am happy to engage, otherwise feel free to continue all by yourself.

mrluke
mrluke
33
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:31 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

Mosin123 wrote:
Thu Nov 24, 2022 5:08 pm
caddy wrote:
Thu Nov 24, 2022 3:59 pm
Mosin123 wrote:
Thu Nov 24, 2022 3:33 pm


Ill take Horners words for it thanks, unless you can provide a link In which a team come out after the important meeting in London ( Which is where it was all concluded and agreed with all the teams and the FIA "Ben Sulayem believed the changes were necessary to ensure public trust in the rules being applied correctly and that they had the unanimous support of F1’s CEO, Stefano Domenicali, and the team principals." ) that followed Horners position?, i dont think you will find any... Because as Horner said, Nobdy wanted Masi to remain on, Not just because of the last race but for a number of incidents during his time.
Horner didn't say other teams are asking for Masi to be fired.

No team principle but Horner supported him in remaining in his role, and no one else gave any support for Masi to remain as race director, i would say its pretty obvious they wanted him removed. But make of that as you will, to me its pretty clear.

Its like a vote no?
Those who support = 1
Those who do not support Masi going into the new season as race director and have 3 completely new race directors installed in his place = 9

I am sure you can agree, not supporting him in remain is the same as wanting him removed from his position, if you cant agree, then ill just leave it at that.
I would love you to provide a source for each of the 9 team principals saying that they want Masi removed and replaced with 3 completely new race directors. You wont of course, because you made it up on the spot to support your view.

What was immediately obvious was that the FIA had broken their own rules and effectively decided the outcome of the WDC. As a result actions had to be taken to ensure such a failure could not be repeated.

Doing nothing was not going to be an option.

Mosin123
Mosin123
0
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2022 4:03 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

caddy wrote:
Thu Nov 24, 2022 5:18 pm
Mosin123 wrote:
Thu Nov 24, 2022 5:08 pm
caddy wrote:
Thu Nov 24, 2022 3:59 pm
Horner didn't say other teams are asking for Masi to be fired.

No team principle but Horner supported him in remaining in his role, and no one else gave any support for Masi to remain as race director, i would say its pretty obvious they wanted him removed. But make of that as you will, to me its pretty clear.

Its like a vote no?
Those who support = 1
Those who do not support Masi going into the new season as race director and have 3 completely new race directors installed in his place = 9

I am sure you can agree, not supporting him in remain is the same as wanting him removed from his position, if you cant agree, then ill just leave it at that.
I didn't read the article the way you did.

https://thesportsrush.com/f1-news-red-b ... s-sacking/
Disappointed to see that no other team voiced support for Masi, says the Red Bull boss
All F1 team principals were present during the FIA’s meeting in London earlier this month. According to Horner, no one voiced their support for Masi in the gathering.

“At the meeting in London, I made it clear that Masi needs more support,” said Horner. “I am disappointed that no one shared this opinion. Red Bull was the only team to support Masi.”
That doesn't say, "FIA wanted to fire Masi and all teams supported it and only Red Bull were against it".

You are taking things completely out of context.

I would like to remind, I didn't come here to talk about who supported or not about Masi's firing. My discussion point was about Shaila's role, Peter Bayer's untimely exit, changes to cost cap rules by Shaila and the leak of cost cap news. If you want to discuss this part, I am happy to engage, otherwise feel free to continue all by yourself.
Or could be read, no body else wanted him kept on, No one supported Masi and his actions and trusted him to be impartial when he clearly wasnt, and his continuing mistakes meant his position became untenable. I quoted you the current FIA president saying his decision with regards to Masi and all teh changes was taken with all the teams principles, to try make sure it never happens again. you can see, Horner wanted him kept on with added help, all teh other teams agreed about the help part but didnt support Masi remaining, clearly..... other wise he would still be race director with two extra helping hands, but that isnt the case is it? No. he is in some no mans championship not even being paid by the FIA.

All teams agreed on changes. only 1 team as quoted by horner offered support for Masi ( The changes dont effect Masi so why would any support be needed for him if his position was not under question? )

Trying to lay the blame of Masi being fired to one sole person is wrong, when you know an imtrim would not be involved in such discussions even more so before she even took her role. was employed by FIA for less than 6 months she took the role in June 2022.......... Masi was sacked in Feb 2022

OFC...
Yes...
Yes...
Yes... It was the Women that worked at Merc that made the FIA sack Masi while she was imtrim at the FIA BEFORE she took the role... OK. It was her.. As you so say so.
OFC

User avatar
Sieper
68
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:19 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

What are these last 6 lines meant to represent? Are these sentences for us to decipher?
Controversy does not have a short memory.

maxxer
maxxer
1
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 11:01 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

For me it was more the inconsistent ruling and not about the top teams but mid and lower field as well, this year was better alot of no further investigation needed

User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:05 am
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: FIA Thread

Post

The logic behind TD039 being introduced mid season now looks either lame or targeted. Effectively it was a mid-season re-interpretation of a technical rule; it is now being released that certain front & rear wing interpretations that were legal were allowed to continue, but will now be outlawed for 2023 on. I’m not sure that I see the where the difference is. All three were ‘technically legal’, all three offered a performance enhancement, all three were trying to circumvent the intent of the regulations, only one was acted upon mid-season.
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

caddy
caddy
2
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:27 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

Stu wrote:
Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:56 am
The logic behind TD039 being introduced mid season now looks either lame or targeted. Effectively it was a mid-season re-interpretation of a technical rule; it is now being released that certain front & rear wing interpretations that were legal were allowed to continue, but will now be outlawed for 2023 on. I’m not sure that I see the where the difference is. All three were ‘technically legal’, all three offered a performance enhancement, all three were trying to circumvent the intent of the regulations, only one was acted upon mid-season.
It was also interesting that the porpoising metric that was mandated from Spa, was eased by Singapore to allow some cars to run lower!

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fia-e ... /10375877/
FIA eases F1 porpoising metric from Singapore GP
Formula 1’s porpoising metric has been tweaked from this weekend’s Singapore Grand Prix to help remove potential problems caused by bumpy tracks, Autosport has learned.
F1’s head of single seater matters Nikolas Tombazis said in that note: “Any car whose AOM exceeds the stipulated AOM [limit] will be reported to the stewards with the recommendation that they be excluded from the results of the sprint or race."

Following some debate with teams about the implications of the metric, it finally came in to force from the Belgian Grand Prix.
It's a fact that TD039 hurt Ferrari due to reinforced plank stiffness, but the porpoising metric had hit Mercedes as they couldn't run the car lower where the car works better. Neither of those two hurt Redbull. In the end, TD039 continued, but porpising metric was eased!

User avatar
diffuser
166
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:55 pm
Location: Montreal

Re: FIA Thread

Post

Mosin123 wrote:
Thu Nov 24, 2022 6:34 pm
Why does it matter that Horner supported Masi and the others didn't? or that none of them supported Masi or some of them supported Masi?

mrluke
mrluke
33
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:31 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

caddy wrote:
Fri Nov 25, 2022 8:18 am
Stu wrote:
Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:56 am
The logic behind TD039 being introduced mid season now looks either lame or targeted. Effectively it was a mid-season re-interpretation of a technical rule; it is now being released that certain front & rear wing interpretations that were legal were allowed to continue, but will now be outlawed for 2023 on. I’m not sure that I see the where the difference is. All three were ‘technically legal’, all three offered a performance enhancement, all three were trying to circumvent the intent of the regulations, only one was acted upon mid-season.
It was also interesting that the porpoising metric that was mandated from Spa, was eased by Singapore to allow some cars to run lower!

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fia-e ... /10375877/
FIA eases F1 porpoising metric from Singapore GP
Formula 1’s porpoising metric has been tweaked from this weekend’s Singapore Grand Prix to help remove potential problems caused by bumpy tracks, Autosport has learned.
F1’s head of single seater matters Nikolas Tombazis said in that note: “Any car whose AOM exceeds the stipulated AOM [limit] will be reported to the stewards with the recommendation that they be excluded from the results of the sprint or race."

Following some debate with teams about the implications of the metric, it finally came in to force from the Belgian Grand Prix.
It's a fact that TD039 hurt Ferrari due to reinforced plank stiffness, but the porpoising metric had hit Mercedes as they couldn't run the car lower where the car works better. Neither of those two hurt Redbull. In the end, TD039 continued, but porpising metric was eased!
I think you're mis-stating that. The metric was changed because the bumpy tracks were tripping it just from the bumps.

caddy
caddy
2
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:27 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

mrluke wrote:
Sat Nov 26, 2022 2:22 am
caddy wrote:
Fri Nov 25, 2022 8:18 am
Stu wrote:
Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:56 am
The logic behind TD039 being introduced mid season now looks either lame or targeted. Effectively it was a mid-season re-interpretation of a technical rule; it is now being released that certain front & rear wing interpretations that were legal were allowed to continue, but will now be outlawed for 2023 on. I’m not sure that I see the where the difference is. All three were ‘technically legal’, all three offered a performance enhancement, all three were trying to circumvent the intent of the regulations, only one was acted upon mid-season.
It was also interesting that the porpoising metric that was mandated from Spa, was eased by Singapore to allow some cars to run lower!

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fia-e ... /10375877/
FIA eases F1 porpoising metric from Singapore GP
Formula 1’s porpoising metric has been tweaked from this weekend’s Singapore Grand Prix to help remove potential problems caused by bumpy tracks, Autosport has learned.
F1’s head of single seater matters Nikolas Tombazis said in that note: “Any car whose AOM exceeds the stipulated AOM [limit] will be reported to the stewards with the recommendation that they be excluded from the results of the sprint or race."

Following some debate with teams about the implications of the metric, it finally came in to force from the Belgian Grand Prix.
It's a fact that TD039 hurt Ferrari due to reinforced plank stiffness, but the porpoising metric had hit Mercedes as they couldn't run the car lower where the car works better. Neither of those two hurt Redbull. In the end, TD039 continued, but porpising metric was eased!
I think you're mis-stating that. The metric was changed because the bumpy tracks were tripping it just from the bumps.
That's the keyword. Someone asked for it to be changed, as much as someone drove it's coming. FIA has just acted in both cases.

User avatar
chrisc90
10
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:22 pm

Re: FIA Thread

Post

It would be interesting to know how many cars had actually triggered the metric on a weekend, and how many were needed to be outside the box to raise the metric.

Its mad that a 'safety metric' designed to protect the drivers, can be raised when a team, or multiple teams on one track cant make a car that rides smoothly.
No Mikey Noo! No! Nooo Mikey! That was sooo not riiight!!

User avatar
FW17
155
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:56 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

chrisc90 wrote:
Sat Nov 26, 2022 12:45 pm
It would be interesting to know how many cars had actually triggered the metric on a weekend, and how many were needed to be outside the box to raise the metric.

Its mad that a 'safety metric' designed to protect the drivers, can be raised when a team, or multiple teams on one track cant make a car that rides smoothly.
Wasn't it done on Thursday before cars hit the track for practice?

GrizzleBoy
GrizzleBoy
27
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:06 am

Re: FIA Thread

Post

Stu wrote:
Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:56 am
The logic behind TD039 being introduced mid season now looks either lame or targeted. Effectively it was a mid-season re-interpretation of a technical rule; it is now being released that certain front & rear wing interpretations that were legal were allowed to continue, but will now be outlawed for 2023 on. I’m not sure that I see the where the difference is. All three were ‘technically legal’, all three offered a performance enhancement, all three were trying to circumvent the intent of the regulations, only one was acted upon mid-season.
Only one of them caused drivers like Pierre Gasly to go for a hospital checkup after Baku, while others looked in literal pain as they got out of their cars.

I'd say that's definitely a large part of what caused the FIA to take action for one and allow others to be modified later.