Rift becoming apparent within FIA & Todt?

[Confused_Andy]

Seems a little strange that Todt said that teams can miss up to three races then the next day the FIA (as a whole i guess) said they they have to participate in every race of the season.

Whats going on, are those stuck in their ways starting to undermine Todt already?


Heres the links for you:
http://www.f1technical.net/news/14155

http://www.f1technical.net/news/14163

[Pandamasque]

Also Todt said about not going for the 2nd term barely into his 1st

[WhiteBlue]

I don't see how the two statements exclude each other. Of course teams are obliged to race, that is what they are committed to. The other question is when the ultimate sanction of exclusion is applied.

[mcdenife]

Or it might just mean they are obliged to turn up to race. Actually taking part in the race is another story. Clarifications, anyone?

[CMSMJ1]

As with Arrows in 2002- you always have to turn up and attempt to qualify at the least.

Arrows ran laps in France, failed to quallify and survived the trauma of the chop.

The next race, Cosworth never let them have the ECU for the engines until the last minute - they qualified and raced.

Spa came around...they arrived, but no money for the motors and no attempt to qualify - game over.

[Confused_Andy]

I thought all cars qualified now days and how can they do qualification laps without a car?

[Richard]

There's no contradiction.

Miss one race and you are at the mercy of the other Concorde signatories. If you are lucky the other teams might even help you out if they think it is a minor blip (been done before).

Miss three and you are out automatically.

The three strikes rule appears to be a long stop. You could still get booted out after missing one or two races if the others think you are taking the piss.

Joe Saward has an explanation http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2010/02/ ... iss-races/

[nipo]

As with Arrows in 2002- you always have to turn up and attempt to qualify at the least.

Arrows ran laps in France, failed to quallify and survived the trauma of the chop.

The next race, Cosworth never let them have the ECU for the engines until the last minute - they qualified and raced.

Spa came around...they arrived, but no money for the motors and no attempt to qualify - game over.

On another thread I have said this. And the Arrows case seem to confirm that.

#1: The Concorde Agreement demands you to "appear", "be ready for scrutineering" and "attempt to complete the race". Not being able to do that means you violate the Agreement.

#2: If you cannot participate in 3 races you are excluded from the CHAMPIONSHIP. It seems not to imply that you are violating the Agreement.

I suppose it is a case like the US GP 2005, where teams appeared but had to pull out of the race because of tire issues. That counts as a successful attempt and does not count as violating the Agreement. However, that might count as missing one race and if you do that 2 more times you are out of the Championship.

In short, you'll break the Concorde Agreement for sure if you don't even have a car.

[WhiteBlue]

There was another explanation offered which relates to the new, respective existing team priviledge. If you miss three races your next year application is treated as if you are a new team. You basically loose all your earned status and your voting rights.

The problem with the bloody Concord is the secrecy. We can speculate all day long and be miles off the truth.