Has Max been a verryyy naughty boy?

[Ted68]

Hell most of this stuff is irrelavent, but anyway...

Did anyone else watch Paul Stoddardt on Windtunnel Sunday? He has left his ChampCar team to pursue a new undefined career path. When asked what that may be he smiled broadly and laughed heartily. He stated that he always said that he'd like to get back to F1 if Max were gone. Then while throwing out a few issues which need to be dealt with, customer cars, technology integration, a few more jabs were thrown at Max about the damage caused over the years, some more laughter and a couple of remarks about having the utmost respect for Mr. Ecclestone.

Sound like he's headed somewhere? Or at least throwing his hat in the ring. Perhaps it could come down to a cage fight between he and Mr. Todt for supremacy.

[WhiteBlue]

Is Stoddart a representative of member club or association of the FIA?
I know that Todt isn't.

[mcdenife]

Not that it matters but almost anybody would be preferable to either Max or Todt. However they say absolute power corrupts absolutely I therefore hope the FIA itself is restructured so there isn't so much power concentrated in the hands of the president. Otherwise it is inevitable the abuses of power will continue under whoever suceeds Max.

[WhiteBlue]

Considering that the FIA under Mosley has achieved many things my view is positive towards the powers of the presidency.

I'm actually more concerned with the election process. It is open to manipulation and is not creating a reasonable representation of the club membership. there should be a weight of the votes according to the size of the clubs. Who can stop people to create bogus clubs with the assistance of the sitting president and manipulate the voting?

[mcdenife]

Considering that the FIA under Mosley has achieved many things my view is positive towards the powers of the presidency.

Mine, I am afraid is not. I cannot be kindly disposed to any dictator/despot regardless of their achievements. The end does not justify the means.

I'm actually more concerned with the election process. It is open to manipulation and is not creating a reasonable representation of the club membership. there should be a weight of the votes according to the size of the clubs. Who can stop people to create bogus clubs with the assistance of the sitting president and manipulate the voting?

Absolutely agree. The election process needs reviewing

[WhiteBlue]

Considering that the FIA under Mosley has achieved many things my view is positive towards the powers of the presidency.

Mine, I am afraid is not. I cannot be kindly disposed to any dictator/despot regardless of their achievements. The end does not justify the means.

Max Mosley is often called a dictator on motorsport internet fora. I do not see a justification for that. I see it as emotionally overblown reaktion to the changes that occurred in the last few years. some of that was very necessary in my view.

To have the F1 future rule development permanently blocked by the veto vote of 2-3 teams wasn't very rational. majority voting seems to work much better if we look at the ovbertaking issue which is finally adressed after more than ten years. it also looks like the cost issue is addressed with more consensus which may lead to better profitability of the teams. the majority wish for a control tyre is implemented and the fan request for ban of TC and launch systems was met. all of this is positive and would not have come with the old veto rule.

Outside motorsport Mosleys safety programs and initiatives have saved many lifes and he has been an effective executive for his constituency.

The current process of democratic control in the FIA shows that we cannot speak of dictatorship honestly. as I said before the bigger concern is his legitemacy.

[mcdenife]

Whiteblue wrote:
Max Mosley is often called a dictator on motorsport internet fora. I do not see a justification for that. I see it as emotionally overblown reaktion to the changes that occurred in the last few years. some of that was very necessary in my view.

I beg to differ and there's alot of evidence/proof to support this but I wont go into that now else we will be here forever. So lets just take the F1 commission.
The so called majority voting commission is currently made up of:

Teams:
Austria - Red Bull Racing
France - Renault
Germany - BMW Sauber
Italy - Ferrari
Japan - Honda
United Kingdom - Williams

Race promoters:
Australian Grand Prix
Brazilian Grand Prix
Hungarian Grand Prix
Monaco Grand Prix
Spanish Grand Prix

This has been structrured (rigged) such that Max always wins. Talk about vote rigging in perpetuity. They have some kinda democracy or majority voting in Zimbabwe but nobody will argue that Mugabe is a dictator. We should thank our stars Max is not president of a country because I shudder to thnk of the consequences. Infact some people have compare Max to Mugabe. I personally think this an insult to Mugabe.
There is so far no explanation why there are promoters on the commission let alone those particular ones. It would be inconcievable for Ferrari or Williams not to be present on this commission just as it is inconcievable that Mclaren is not present. By that I mean all teams should be represented.

Whiteblue wrote:
Majority voting seems to work much better if we look at the ovbertaking issue which is finally adressed after more than ten years.

I am not sure the overtaking issue has been addressed. A while ago, Ciro I think, produced some stats showing that infact there
has been virtually no change in overtaking from the so called golden era of F1. And there is nothing to suggest the new regs willachieve this or change anything soon.

whiteblue wrote:
It also looks like the cost issue is addressed with more consensus which may lead to better profitability of the teams.

Change costs money. I rephrase: Change cost even MORE money. All the team agree on this. Not one team will tell you there have been any cost benefits or savings. The so called cost saving have failed to materialise (ask Theissen regarding the move to V8's - Plus how many teams actually voted for this move. Where is Cosworth today? no longer in F1 thats where)
If anything, its become worse for the independents. Ask stoddart, ask Williams and the 2 teams currently on their knees.

According to recent financials only one of the UK based team made a profit. What profitability.

whiteblue wrote:
The majority wish for a control tyre is implemented and the fan request for ban of TC and launch systems was met.

Yes but the control tyre was initially vetoed by FIA(T) if you catch my meaning. And look what had to happen before
TC could be banned, there had to be a single supplier. We will judge the outcome of this come end of season.But god help
us if Mclaren happen to win the championship. There will be all kinds of allegations.

Added to all of this, the [kangaroo]court of Appeal is a Joke. You cannot talk about democracy if there is no justice. The go hand in hand. Just ask Zimbabweans, afterall they have "majority rule".

A quote from Stoddart:
those inside the world of Formula One know it is absolutely useless to attend, defend, appeal or even enter into dialogue regarding any charges brought in an FIA court, arbitration proceeding or other body.

Ferrari have now questioned wisdom of KERS and the cost involved.

The trap speculation, though irrelevant, if true, says a lot about the FIA that it needed something like this to get rid of him.

[WhiteBlue]

from the 2008 sporting rules, which introduced majority voting

APPENDIX 5
RULE CHANGES
1. Changes to the Technical Regulations will be proposed by the Technical Working Group (TWG) consisting of one senior technical representative from each team and chaired by a representative of the FIA.
2. Changes to the Sporting Regulations will be proposed by the Sporting Working Group (SWG) consisting of one senior representative from each team and chaired by a representative of the FIA.
3. Decisions in the TWG and SWG will be taken by a simple majority vote. The FIA representative will not vote unless the teams’ representatives are equally divided, in which case he will exercise a casting vote.
4. Proposals from the TWG and the SWG will go to the Formula One Commission consisting of six representatives from the teams, five representatives from the race promoters and one representative each from the Commercial Rights Holder and the FIA. At least two race promoters must be from Europe and at least two from outside Europe. Decisions of the Commission will be by simple majority. The FIA will have a casting vote in the event of equality.
5. The Formula One Commission may accept or refuse a proposal of the TWG or the SWG, but not amend it. A proposal which is refused may be sent back to the relevant Working Group for further consideration.
6. Proposals accepted by the Formula One Commission will be put before the World Motor Sport Council for a final decision. Proposals which are not accepted by the World Motor Sport Council may be sent back to the Formula One Commission and the relevant Working Group for further consideration.
7. Changes required for safety reasons will be considered separately by the FIA, which will take into account any representations made by the TWG or SWG.

since this has come into effect the rule changes have all been sorted out in the working groups.

the F1 commission wasn't even required to meet. the FIA did not need to intervene because majorities were established easily.

btw, the overtaking working group quickly produced the necessary rule changes for better overtaking and they are being implemented for next year as you well know. it took the teams no more than a month or two to approve the plan with a majority vote. the FIA had no role in defining the specific solution. McLaren, Ferrari and Renault worked out the solution which was accepted by the minor teams. when did we ever have that in the 20 years before? there was always one team that shot down sensible proposals to gain or keep an advantage.

the cost issue is also being adressed by participation. the majority of teams have voted for a budget cap and suitable control mechnisms for that. the teams are now working on proposals for an implementation. we should give them a chance to come up with something.

can it be that your "hang Max" attitude is motivated by the fact that he had multiple collisions with your favorite team and team principal rather than the facts?

I have shown that majority voting is working and will be beneficial for F1. perhaps we talk about such facts rather than emoltional monikers like "kangaroo court" that have little value beyond stirring up emotions.

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, Max is a dictator or not? The way people elect you is not important (e.g. Paraguay's Stroessner won 5 terms by popular vote), the crux is how you deal with things.

Max has passed all his proposals to FIA Senate in four terms with a possitive vote. In the only occasion he did not, the two french guys that "got him" were expelled from FIA a year after that.

So, if he's not a dictator, he behaves like one.

Technical things are different: they are not decided democratically. Majority vote is absurd. I remember the US state that decreed (by majority) that the value of Pi was 3.

The TWG, like all technical groups, has a director, almost a dictator. Working groups are NOT a democracy, they're are directed more like a family (a family is NOT a democracy either).

I've never held a vote on a technical issue in 30 years of technical meetings, you convince the director (and the group) through argument and experimentation.

Science magazines don't vote on articles: the work speaks by itself. Just look at the results of FIA votes now: they take forever and they seem to represent the interests of the financial heavyweights.

[mcdenife]

whiteblue wrote

he majority of teams have voted for a budget cap and suitable control mechnisms for that. the teams are now working on proposals for an implementation. we should give them a chance to come up with something.

Define vote.
As far as I know a vote is not the same thing as agreeing under duress. Max issued an ultimatum, Budget cap or else. Now there is a "working group" working on the implementation as you say.

Whiteblue wrote:

can it be that your "hang Max" attitude is motivated by the fact that he had multiple collisions with your favorite team and team principal rather than the facts?

Pray tell who might this be? I dont believe I have ever mentioned or stated on this forum whether or not I have a fave team or driver. That I can see Max for what he is does not mean I have hang max attitude. I simply think he should go and thats based on facts.

whiteblue wrote:

I have shown that majority voting is working and will be beneficial for F1. perhaps we talk about such facts rather than emoltional monikers like "kangaroo court" that have little value beyond stirring up emotions.

Only time can show what can show whether the new system can be beneficial for F1 but Perhaps you are not aware what is meant by kangaroo court?

[WhiteBlue]

oops, how did I get into a discussion about Mr. Mosley's methods?

I guess that is something that will be irrelevant soon. I expect the EGA to replace him in June because his personal habits aren't acceptable to the majority of club members. If not then it will be due to the flaws in the election system which I have commented. and that is the real problem of the FIA in my view.

I agree with Ciro that he did some good things. He obviously made a bunch of mistakes as well. That doesn't mean the system of presidency is wrong. I would rather spare myself an emotional debate whether he is/was a dictator. I just want to mention that if he is one his death toll has been inverted to what benchmarks in the business like Saddam and Hitler had on their conscience. perhaps tinpot dictator fits? think about it.

[gcdugas]

Any assertion that Max listens to the TWG, the teams (other than Ferrari), engineers, the principles, or the manufacturers is patently absurd. He openly defies them all. The narrow tract/grooved tyres change was foisted upon the teams unilaterally in 1998. All the goofy aero "box zones for wing locations" (raising the front wing twice now has made passing more difficult as the "ground effects" under the wing is far less aero sensitive when it is closer to the pavement enabling the cars to follow in "dirty air" much better for over-taking) changes have likewise been unilaterally decreed. Michelin was shown the door against many teams' wishes. The V8s, complete with specified bore centers, camshaft centers, alloys allowed, etc. were foisted upon the teams for "safety reasons". Variable intake trumpets were banned apart from the TWG's input etc. The engine freeze was never an idea that the teams or the TWG agreed to. The standard ECU wasn't agreed to by the TWG. The race fuel quali change of 2003 was introduced in January after the cars were already designed. All the quali changes since then have been done in defiance of the teams wishes. etc. etc. etc.

Crash structure loads, wheel tethers, cockpit issues and arguably the increase in mirror size are, all within the "safety clause", and thereby within the purview of the FIA. Engine configuration, (as late as 1995 we has V8s, V10s, and V12s), V-angle, cylinder spacing, camshaft location, (remember Renault was working on electro/magneto/servo controlled valves, a genuine breakthrough), allowable alloys etc. all are none of Max's business and belong to the domain of the TWG but Max has defied them all. In fact we wouldn't even have pneumatic valves if Max's micro-managing regs had been in place in 1990. Did you know, that in the mind of the FIA, a transmission must have a specified lag time between gear changes or it is deemed a CVT despite having fixed ratios? This is the type of nonsense that Max passes off as valid interpretation. BTW, why are CVTs banned anyway? And why was active suspension banned? And why no "torque steer" braking that would allow the inside trye to have less brake line pressure and thereby not lock up and ruin the tyre? Were any of these things properly run through th TWG? No!!!!

And then there are Max's court decisions, warming ovens used by Ferrari in 2005 are deemed to be "permissible blankets", hub caps are "homogeneous wheels" as the regs require. Internal mass dampers that never see the wind are "movable aero devices"???, it is bad if Mac has Ferrari drawings but it is OK if Renault has Mac drawings, or Midland has STR/Red Bull drawings.

There is no way that Max should be in office for many of these reasons apart from his recent sexcapades. But I find it very fitting that he is soon to be booted for things that were uncovered in a less than honorable manner. After all it was Max who, during the Spygate court proceedings, said:


"In front of us is a list of 323 text messages and telephone calls – a combination of the two – over a 3.5 month period. The World Council’s only concern is whether that list is accurate and truthful. We are not concerned with whether there are issues over how that is obtained. Unless there is
evidence that it is forged or inaccurate, we will take it on its face value."

It just seems to me that when the information suits Max Mosley, the means by which it obtained is irrelevant, but when he doesn't like the information, those means are paramount.

[gcdugas]

Story here...

Spanish FIA official happy not to have Mosley

Carlos Gracia, the boss of the Real Federacion Espanola de Automoviliso, told the Associated Press that he is "delighted that Max is not here.

"He's damaged FIA a lot with this," he said. "The FIA is an entity that needs to send out an image of credibility. It's not the best moment to do something anti-racism with Max involved. I supported Max in all moments. I think he's done a great job for the sport. But under the circumstances, his attitude and personal life has caused major damage to FIA's image. It's the president's job to give off a certain image."

"I think FIA needs a definite change. Everything needs to be stabilized."

[checkered]

He's damaged FIA a lot with this. The FIA is an entity that needs to send out an image of credibility. It's not the best moment to do something anti-racism with Max involved. I supported Max in all moments. I think he's done a great job for the sport. But under the circumstances, his attitude and personal life has caused major damage to FIA's image. It's the president's job to give off a certain image. I think FIA needs a definite change. Everything needs to be stabilized.

This comment from C. Gracia was entirely

uncalled for. He's taking a gratuitous swipe at Max at the cost of the credibility of the Everyrace project, which is just beginning. This issue is to be taken more seriously than as a verbal bludgeoning object that has come in handy. I'm left wondering which would be worse - that Mr. Gracia has thought about the implications this, or that he hasn't. Both options are probably equally bad. A multitude of F1 drivers and team members have lent their faces, support and thoughts to this. Fernando Alonso, a driver whom Mr. Gracia represents, did so. Max certainly didn't appear as the poster boy by himself.

I'm quite sure that those involved didn't do so to have their message or themselves implicitly diminished by a fleeting association to Max's leisure activities. Mr. Mosley's doings are in no dire threat of going unnoticed by the media and the public, while a million injustices involving ordinary persons have little chance of making it onto the pages of newspapers or websites. The Everyrace project was started for a reason, and proactively. Perhaps Mr. Gracia would be well advised to revisit the original idea and reconsider what to make of it. Or leave it alone, at least.

There are countless ways to disapprove of Mosley, most all of them better than this. There is no "best time" to act against racial, religious or cultural prejudice. The time is now, always now.

[gcdugas]

OK, I see that you are zealous for the success of the anti-racism campaign. But it is Max's self inflicted injury that has diminished his credibility and stature to be involved in such an effort. All Mr Gracia did was to point that out. His comments do not undermine the effort but rather they show what must be done for that effort to succeed.... namely, Max must go.

If you are truly zealous for positive fruit to come out of the EveryRace effort, then logically you would also want to remove all hindrances to the success thereof. All Mr. Gracia did was to point out that the emperor has no clothes. In Max's case, he is responsible for his own lack of clothing as the analogy applies. No pun intended either.