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.
gcdugas wrote:
WB are you sure you want that statement attached to your name? "Due diligence"?... I plainly pointed out that a rival site was diligent whereas AutoSport neglected to apply even the most basic journalistic questions of.... how, what, WHY, where, when and who. Why did the "benchmark publication" fail to question the manifest contradiction in Mosley's statements made within a ten day period? Why did they not point out that Mosley was offering the teams an invitation to commit themselves unconditionally before it was certain to what they were committing themselves to and there was no guarantee that they could "shape things"?....
1. I have never written about due diligence, because that term is used in a different meaning traditionally.
2. All this business about Mosley inviting the teams to make conditional applications could be a red hering. Where is the quotation of that and who has given testimony to introduce it as a fact? The whole thing could have been planted and in its original wording could have had a whole different meaning. A serious news outlet is well advised not to include such rumors in their reporting. If someone gives me a source from FOTA which gives us the exact wording I would reconsider of course.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue wrote:
2. All this business about Mosley inviting the teams to make conditional applications could be a red hering. Where is the quotation of that and who has given testimony to introduce it as a fact? The whole thing could have been planted and in its original wording could have had a whole different meaning. A serious news outlet is well advised not to include such rumors in their reporting. If someone gives me a source from FOTA which gives us the exact wording I would reconsider of course.
Well we see how closely you pay attention to the news. Here is your quote. Now reconsider.
Innovation over refinement is the prefered path to performance. -- Get rid of the dopey regs in F1
There could be all kind of misunderstandings behind that comment. Mosley could have told them to put in a proposal to solve this mess by compromise. Certainly one would have expected that a counter proposal would have been presented with some good will towards a negotiated settlement. I could not read this from what Domenicali presented to the Press a week ago on Sunday. As a responsible journalist I would be asking some questions before I would use the Theissen quote as fact.
Last edited by Ciro Pabón on 10 Jun 2009, 14:41, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:OOT quotes
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WB, do you just troll these threads to argue? Do you honestly doubt the Thiessen assertion that the conditional entries were Max's idea? Not one FOTA member has sought to rephrase it if it were inaccurate or poorly stated. No one has disputed it. Other FOTA people have repeated the same assertion in other interviews. Not even Max is contending the fact that he put the idea of conditional entries forward. So why do you? If Max hasn't challenged the assertion, then you shouldn't either.
It is sad that AutoSport is surrendering their integrity by notable omissions of fact. And the such things as omitting Max's 180 degree flip flop within a weeks time are of such proportion that their omission can only be willful and by design. Simply put, AutoSport willfully lent their hand in attaching misleading "spin" in the article.
Innovation over refinement is the prefered path to performance. -- Get rid of the dopey regs in F1
Yes, it is sad that these days you can no longer rely on one traditional source to get your facts.
But in a way, if you want the information, with the internet, you can get it. It may take up time that you feel could've gone into better journalism, but if you want all sides of an argument, you have to go out and find them.
Which is why, whenever I sit down with my hot beverage of choice on a Friday while watching the morning Practice session, I choose to read from several different websites with varying degrees of accuracy and opinion, and I try to find all the bolts that go into making a story. Even if it does not give me a complete view or a truthful assessment, I feel as though that's the best I can do, and I enjoy reading differing opinions and articles.
This site is pretty much achieving what is in discussion here as not being achieved.
These guys put up about the only hard facts there are: the results.
There are interviews with drivers and team personnel, which maybe be spun a little by the interviewee but credit to the 'staff' of Formula 1, they are defiantly giving out more information, and more accurate information, largely because their is less to hide than a few years ago.
There are technical articles, some of which require co-operation from the companies under discussion, but are none the less enlightening.
And then they have a section with us lot de-bunking as many myths as possible (or re-enforcing them, but usually done in the belief that we are correct :^o ) and countering many of the opinions published, even those featured on the very site which hosts us. Not only that but some of the forum content shares the front page!
I read my younger brother's uni dissertation the other day, he has just passed a pretty intensive media degree with flying colours and having tracked the climate for the last 4 years including time within a multinational media firm it was overwhelmingly obvious to him that greater amounts of feedback, the ease of giving feedback, and getting a valid response to that feedback (or interactivity if you prefer) is the single most important element in increasing the satisfaction of consumers of more traditional 'outbound-only' media. Talking to a magazine currently yields little feedback, no doubt it will one day, and if Autosport still exists by then it will surely incorporate this feature, however a quick visit to the Autosport website shows no forum topics under discussion displayed on the front page, when you enter the forum there is no shortcut to view active topics or recent posts, no related threads displayed at the bottom of the open thread etc. Also the visual style of the forum's is far less pleasing to the eye, to the point where it seems un-inviting. They have had plenty of time (and probably more money) to work on their own efforts and they are still a way behind.
To be fair to Autosport they have a hard job, in my humble opinion the look of THIS site and the navigation process are some of the most polished I have come across and the balance of content, interactivity and advertising are about as good as I have seen.
So hats off to F1T for getting the most things the most right! Perhaps the traditional media should be trying to pursue strong collaborations with existing web portals like this one, where the relevant skill set is in evidence on every pixel. It would at least make their consumers happier, even if the margins are not to their accountants liking. [-X
gcdugas wrote:WB, do you just troll these threads to argue? Do you honestly doubt the Thiessen assertion that the conditional entries were Max's idea? Not one FOTA member has sought to rephrase it if it were inaccurate or poorly stated. No one has disputed it. Other FOTA people have repeated the same assertion in other interviews. Not even Max is contending the fact that he put the idea of conditional entries forward. So why do you? If Max hasn't challenged the assertion, then you shouldn't either.
It is sad that AutoSport is surrendering their integrity by notable omissions of fact. And the such things as omitting Max's 180 degree flip flop within a weeks time are of such proportion that their omission can only be willful and by design. Simply put, AutoSport willfully lent their hand in attaching misleading "spin" in the article.
Yes, how dare anyone on the internet allow their personal opinion and bigotry to run their typing fingers!?!?!?
We haven't seen that before, and especially not from you!
gcdugas wrote:...Do you honestly doubt the Thiessen assertion that the conditional entries were Max's idea? Not one FOTA member has sought to rephrase it if it were inaccurate or poorly stated. No one has disputed it. Other FOTA people have repeated the same assertion in other interviews. Not even Max is contending the fact that he put the idea of conditional entries forward. So why do you? If Max hasn't challenged the assertion, then you shouldn't either.....
No, I don't doubt that Theissen has said that and that Mosley asked for a conditional application. I have my doubts that Mosley expected the conditions which were set.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue wrote:
No, I don't doubt that Theissen has said that and that Mosley asked for a conditional application. I have my doubts that Mosley expected the conditions which were set.
Well it is not the particular conditions that Mosley is recently objecting to, though he certainly objects to those conditions. It is the whole notion of attaching any conditions that Max is now against. That is why he is trying to get the teams to abandon their conditions in their entirety. And that represents a 180 degree flip flop from the illustrious Mr. Mosley.
Coincidentally he also wants them to be subject to the whims of the new teams of which Max will personally select the applications that are "accepted".
Innovation over refinement is the prefered path to performance. -- Get rid of the dopey regs in F1
Sir Jack Brabham and his family have followed through their threat to launch legal action after it emerged that a company aims to take their famous surname back to the formula one grid in 2010.
It was announced last week that a German automotive supply company, Formtech, now controls the Brabham Grand Prix Ltd moniker and filed an official team entry for next year.
Former triple world champion Brabham, an Australian who is now 83, founded the outfit in 1960 and it later raced under Bernie Ecclestone's stewardship.
But the Brabham family insisted it is "in no way involved" with Franz Hilmer's new Brabham Grand Prix outfit, and nor was it consulted about the plans.
In a new statement, the Brabham family confirmed that "it has been necessary to commence legal action against Brabham Grand Prix Limited" in order to "protect the family name".
The statement said Formtech did not respond to their proposals to amicably resolve the situation, and that the action will now proceed "irrespective" of whether the team is granted a spot on the FIA's 2010 entry list.
Jack Brabham's family added: "The Brabham name has always been the property of the family and it is sad that once again steps have to be taken to protect it."
Talking about bad journalism.....
1. Paddock talk do not report about a law suit over a new Formula 1 entry. They talk about a law suit over the use of a disputed brand name.
2. Paddock talk reurgitates a story that is at least 3 days old. Under the new head line it suggest incorrectly that there is a legal challenge to one of the three new F1 entries, which is untrue. The so called Brabham team isn't even among the approved entries. Hello!!
3. What is the meat to this story anyway? Brabham will do some damage to a team that has been ill advised to legally aquire the brand. If the law suit is ever fought out Brabham will probably loose it (they have no commercial use and the brand appears to be legally aquired). Considering that they will probably destroy the viability of the race team by their legal action the whole thing will simply be a destructive exercise. If they wanted to protect their name against the use by a corporate entity they should not have let the company name slip away or bought it themselves. Imagine my name is Edison and a Chinese electric appliance company like Heyer starts to use my name. If I did not upheld the protection for the commercial use of the brand I had no right to complain. Same for Brabham.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
By Jonathan Noble Sunday, September 13th 2009, 17:11 GMT
Kimi Raikkonen, Ferrari, Italian GPKimi Raikkonen's run of four consecutive podium finishes is still not enough to guarantee his place at Ferrari next year, team principal Stefano Domenicali suggested on Sunday night.
While discussions continue between Raikkonen and Ferrari management about the possibility of ending the Finn's contract a year early, Domenicali suggested after the Italian Grand Prix that the situation was still very open.
When asked to end speculation about Raikkonen's future and confirm the 2007 world champion would drive for the team next year, Domenicali said: "I think that, as we have said, we don't want to discuss this now, because I don't think it is correct.
"As you know, Kimi has a contract with us next year, and this is what we can say now. We are happy with the performance of Kimi because he is playing fantastically, he is driving very, very well.
"The team is very, very happy in the way that he is performing - above all in the second part of the season when I have to say that with the last five races, he was always on the podium and he scored, I think after Barrichello, the highest points, who is fighting for the championship."
Raikkonen is believed to be weighing up offers from the McLaren and Brawn GP teams while his negotiations about paying off his 2010 contract continue.
His departure would make way for Fernando Alonso, who the team is determined to slot into the Maranello outfit.
Despite the long-term doubts about Raikkonen's place at the team, Domenicali did praise the way that the Finn had performed in recent races.
"I think that Kimi, as we have seen in the second part of the season, he is really very, very strong, very consistent, always on the podium and always there. For sure he has improved significantly but he is the Kimi that we know – he is the Kimi who was world champion with us two years ago, so we know that they can do that."
When asked if he expected the team to continue its run of five podium finishes, Domenicali said: "I hope that we can be on the podium in the next five races. I think that he can do it.
"Kimi is very, very good, he can do it. And with a performance that we really do not understand where all the different teams are, so if you are able as a team to maximise the performance then we can really be on the podium in the last four races for sure."
Am I missing something here? What exactly does Domenicali say to justify this story's headline and lede?
