[HOTgirlsXXL]

2007 - Kimi Raikkonen, Ferrari
2006 - Fernando Alonso, Renault
2005 - Fernando Alonso, Renault
2004 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari
2003 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari
2002 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari
2001 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari
2000 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari
1999 - Mika Hakkinen, McLaren
1998 - Mika Hakkinen, McLaren
1997 - Jacques Villeneuve, Williams
1996 - Damon Hill, Williams
1995 - Michael Schumacher, Benetton
1994 - Michael Schumacher, Benetton
1993 - Alain Prost, Williams

1993

Max took over the FIA during a period of McLaren dominance.

Do you dispute the long running battle between Ron and Max?

Slightly different story isn't it.

Your post confirms that Max's tenure as President of the FIA coincides with a downturn in McLarens fortunes and the most dominant period of Ferrari success in the history of Motorsport.

I really cannot see why you posted that as it confirms my arguement. After all, you can't argue against your own posts can you even if you can defend bias

[EHjEjdqe]

1993

Max took over the FIA during a period of McLaren dominance.

Do you dispute the long running battle between Ron and Max?

Slightly different story isn't it.

Your post confirms that Max's tenure as President of the FIA coincides with a downturn in McLarens fortunes and the most dominant period of Ferrari success in the history of Motorsport.

I really cannot see why you posted that as it confirms my arguement. After all, you can't argue against your own posts can you even if you can defend bias

How can you say this with no evidence?

[HOTgirlsXXL]

By my reckoning , the score since 1993 is Ferrari 6, Others 9.

Ferrari have, therefore, lost in 60% of those years in which Max has been in charge of the FIA.

Interesting notion of "bias" you have there.

Since 93 it is 5 / 9 but including 93 it would be 6. I don't really think you can claim 93 as included in this though.

Now, remember the accusation that Max helped fix the MS / Benneton championship in a Hotel? (Please don't make me dig that up as we both know what I'm on about)

Hey mate, you posted the stats. Don't blame me if you don't like them now.

So what was the results before Max took over and after?

(no, you don't like that one do you)

OK, what percentage of championships were won by Ferrari since Max took over, what by McLare, Honda, Williams, Toyota, BMW.

What you're telling me is Ferrari have won almost as much as everyone else put together?

Personally, I don't think that such a stupid set of facts proves anything but you seem to think they do.

I would rather deal with specific instances like the current Chicanegate but you are just looking to post silly stats and how they support your claims.

Anyway, this isn't the end of the world. As long as Cern have better control over process and quality than the FIA has, we should all be here tomorrow.

[malishka1025]

Ferrari won in 2000-2004 because they did a bloody good job and had a great team. Pretty much all the races bar a few have been won by Ferrari because they simply had a better team. During this time McLaren didn't win because some of the cars were utter crap.

Sure some races had controversial decisions by the FIA in Ferraris favour. But this doesn't get away from the fact that since 97-98 Ferrari have been a championship winning team. It's not like the FIA gave them a helping hand in the R+D of the car, and a bootload of cash to get good drivers.

And this year, the Massa pit thing was hardly anything to make a fuss of over the penalty. There was bucket loads of room and unless Massa was a complete idiot, there wouldn't have been a collision. If it happened further up the pitlane where its crowded and there's much less room I could understand.

As for Spa, any fool can see that Hamilton didn't back off as much as he should have, and gained an advantage of track position by cutting the chicane. Just like most other sports, the british public will fight and argue over careful decisions made by unbiased stewards and will never admit they did something wrong. I must say however the FIA should say for definate if something is 'OK' or not. It's not fair to tell your driver to battle on under the advice of the governing body, only to find out the governing body was wrong and you incur a bigger penalty because of it.

[Lapsinuibense]

lol

this is getting out of hands!!

Ferrari always had preferential treatment, we all know that. Yet again Hamilton gained advantage by cutting the chicane, so his speed on the next straight was better than Kimi, therfore an overtaking was more feasible.

In fact, PdlR, Mclaren test driver and a great profesional, said live during the broadcasting just after the incident took place that Hamilton's move was barely legal and that could be investigated.

Furthermore, FA on a similar moneouvre at Monza (last year I think) was told to give back his position again (though he had already given it back) just because of the same reason.

I can't remember were it was, but I have seen michael Schumacher cutting the chicanes to avoid being overtaken by PdlR.

So, let's see the pattern here:
Ferrari will always have preferential treatment? yes
Does the Hamilton incident has anything to do with Ferrari's preferential treatment? no
Was the punishment fair? in my honest opinion yes

just my two cents.

[sDePrx59]

...why, if the FIA is so biased towards Ferrari, did it take 21 years for Ferrari to win a WDC?

Well they don't want to make it look too obvious now do they

[attanilifardy]

How can you say this with no evidence?

A good portion of that $100 million fine says otherwise. Not questioning the ruling, but as close to a death sentence as one can get without actually hanging them from the rafters. The Renault-Ferrari compromise went away much differently.

[RorieSorNearop]

“Firstly, because it holds a historically important position, as the team has been involved in Formula 1 since 1950. The second point has something to do with existential orientation; imagine there were only one British team and all other teams were Italian, that the commercial rights-holder was Italian, as was the FIA President, the race director and his assistant and the sport's commissioner. Wouldn't it be understandable that this team would be very careful? I use my neutrality with a huge amount of responsibility and stay in close contact with Ferrari to assure them that no British ‘mafia' or cartel tries to take advantage of them, but should we find it necessary to impose our technical or sporting regulations, then Ferrari is treated like any other team. Should we find irregularities on a Ferrari – like the moveable floor after the Australian Grand Prix – it is removed and banned.”

So where did you see bias in that?

If anything, it is Ferrari who should be worried about bias, given that the majority of the other teams are the same nationality as the FIA President, the race director, his assistant and the sports commisioner.

Perhaps, since your'e so keen on there not being any chance of bias, you should be demanding that Charlie Whiting is replaced by somebody from a country without links to an F1 team?

I can recommend a Kenyan.

And let's NOT forget that the latest rule changes introduced in F1 were introduced to prevent FERRARI from continuing winning the whole time. Without those changes F1 would the most boring sport (not for me).
So, if anyone got an advantage from those changes it was MCLAREN.
(I seem to recall that before those changes took place McLaren's cars could not finish a GP since due to the fragility of their engines)

[TerriLS]

Where the feck has Mosley or anybody else at the FIA said that they are biased? Nowhere.

"Bias - a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation"

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...ition&ct=title



They have stated that Ferrari are the most important team in F1. Since the other teams all signed up to the FIA as soon as Ferrari left the GPWC group, that is merely a statement of fact.

So let me get this right, you now don't want the FIA not to admit facts?

Why shouldn't the President of the FIA have a 'personal relationship' with the head of Ferrari? It makes perfect sense to have a good relationship. Just because Ron Dennis is incapable of having a personal relationship doesn't mean that the rest of F1 has to adopt his social faults.

So, please, carry on believing what you want to believe, but at least answer why, if the FIA is so biased towards Ferrari, did it take 21 years for Ferrari to win a WDC?

If the FIA is biased, what took so long?

I don't think its Ferrari bias per se.

At its most basic level its like working on a group project and favouring the guys you like.

It's well know Jean Todt and Max get get on.

Some of the drivers weren't particular happy with Schumi cosying up with Max Mosley.

On the other side of the coin in 1994 post Imola, Briatore wrote to the FIA criticising Mosley's plans to quickly implement safety within a short time frame. It's alleged that Mosley got his own back on Briatore by coming down hard on Benetton that year such as Schumacher's race bans after the Silverstone/black flag fiasco.

[emuffette]

Do you dispute the long running battle between Ron and Max?

Slightly different story isn't it.

Your post confirms that Max's tenure as President of the FIA coincides with a downturn in McLarens fortunes and the most dominant period of Ferrari success in the history of Motorsport.

You might be onto something - perhaps it was Max who delivered those 700 pages to Coughlin to get back at Ron...hmm...

[Donadoni1809]

The route of this discussion seems to gradually bring us to the ultimate conclusion - all the previous World Titles have been fixed.

[sDePrx59]

There are teams in F1 other than Ferrari and McLaren for goodness sake!!!

Williams haven't won much for a while...perhaps the FIA are biased against them. Force India have made good progress this year; does that mean the rules were introduced to help them? Renault won in 2005-6 so obviously the FIA favoured them, that is until they chose not too last year.

[chuecfafresslds]

I think that sometimes Ferrari gets better treatment, sometimes McLaren. I see no bias. In my opinion the changes after 2002 and 2004 ruined Ferrari's advantage and this is far worse than the scandal in Belgium. In my opinion McLaren were not punished severely enough last year and in my opinion they still benefit from that Ferrari' knowledge this year. So I really think that they should have been banned for these two years. But on the other hand it would have been bad for the show.
This year FIA also took some decisions which are bad for the show. My main problem is that these things are decided much too slow. In Valencia we had to wait almost two hours to learn whether Massa wins, or not. In Belgium we still don't know who won. After an accident happens, give the punishment immediately or do nothing. This wait is very annoying and makes the races pretty pointless.
But I can't see any bias. Only bad organization.

[HOTgirlsXXL]

I think that sometimes Ferrari gets better treatment, sometimes McLaren. I see no bias. In my opinion the changes after 2002 and 2004 ruined Ferrari's advantage and this is far worse than the scandal in Belgium. In my opinion McLaren were not punished severely enough last year and in my opinion they still benefit from that Ferrari' knowledge this year. So I really think that they should have been banned for these two years. But on the other hand it would have been bad for the show.
This year FIA also took some decisions which are bad for the show. My main problem is that these things are decided much too slow. In Valencia we had to wait almost two hours to learn whether Massa wins, or not. In Belgium we still don't know who won. After an accident happens, give the punishment immediately or do nothing. This wait is very annoying and makes the races pretty pointless.
But I can't see any bias. Only bad organization.

You may be onto something here.

Although I disagree with your conclusions on Spygate, you have raised some interesting points.

It is my opinion that Max is more predisposed to come down hard on McLaren than Ferrari. There seems to be a lot of circumstantial evidence but no proof.

Does this mean that the FIA favours Ferrari or is it just poor management as you suggest?

Not sure.

Looking at Chicanegate, the Stewards were correct in that Lewis cut the chicane. That is what they have ruled on and they imposed a penalty that was also correct.

(Bet there’s some selective quoting of that sentence )

Now, does this show a predisposition to favour Ferrari or penalize McLaren?

Well, taken as a specific instance, then no, it doesn’t but used in context, it raises some fundamental issues.

The “understanding”, because it’s damn near impossible to get clarification out of the FIA, is that if you pass someone by going off track, you give the place back.

That happened and McLaren checked twice through the correct channels that they were OK.

That should have been the end of it but as we know it wasn’t.

The stewards seemed to have acted on something with no justification of precedent. In fact, it seems completely at odds with recognized process and procedure. It “appears” like rules are not being applied fairly and consistently.

This is why there is uproar.

People like Nicki Lauda and Pat Symmonds are respected within the sport and if they are saying this is wrong, then they really need to be listened to.

The FIA needs to manage this. If it is a decision that they agree with, they need to say why it stands, explain why this has been handled in a way that is different with past precedent and ensure everyone is clear on what is expected in the future because at the moment, there is not this clarity.

The fact we are in this mess is due to poor management and this can be rectified. If it isn’t then it will continue to damage the credibility of the FIA and further call into account their ability to govern the sport.

There must be consistency and Stewards need to be accountable for their decisions.

In this specific example, the Race Director should have referred it to the Stewards or the Stewards should have informed the Race Director of their intentions to investigate. That’s the rules.

Had that have been done, then McLaren could have let Kimi back past again (even though this is not a sanctioned penalty within the rules) or decided to do a drive through on their own volition.

The only problem is that the way the Stewards issued their judgment; it is quite likely that the time penalty would have stood. They made no allowance for any effort McLaren made to rectify the situation and merely stated the rules.

He cut the corner and as it was within 5 laps, a 25 second penalty is the punishment. That is the letter of the law and nothing McLaren could have done to amend was considered.

This situation is unprecedented.

[EHjEjdqe]

There are teams in F1 other than Ferrari and McLaren for goodness sake!!!

Williams haven't won much for a while...perhaps the FIA are biased against them. Force India have made good progress this year; does that mean the rules were introduced to help them? Renault won in 2005-6 so obviously the FIA favoured them, that is until they chose not too last year.

Couldn't agree more. Talk of bias is for people who just can't handle when a driver or team breaks a rule or simply can't get a car together to do well in a season.

[Verriasana]

I'm more inclined to believe it was a cock-up rather than a conspiracy. But a bloody great big cock-up which needs overturning.

[secondmertg]

So , now you can do this , obviously .
All you drivers , feel free to drive straight through those chicanes so you can get the tow into the next corner .
As long as you let the other guy through for a moment , you can use that draft to get by , by doing this , whereas you might not get close enough if you follow them through .

That seems to be the general feeling here , although we might want to wait for the decision from the FIA .

[RorieSorNearop]

So , now you can do this , obviously .
All you drivers , feel free to drive straight through those chicanes so you can get the tow into the next corner .
As long as you let the other guy through for a moment , you can use that draft to get by , by doing this , whereas you might not get close enough if you follow them through .

That seems to be the general feeling here , although we might want to wait for the decision from the FIA .

[fil_nurser]

So , now you can do this , obviously .
All you drivers , feel free to drive straight through those chicanes so you can get the tow into the next corner .
As long as you let the other guy through for a moment , you can use that draft to get by , by doing this , whereas you might not get close enough if you follow them through .

That seems to be the general feeling here , although we might want to wait for the decision from the FIA .

Bagwan please look again at this video and let me know where exactly Lewis used any draft ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXVT4CO6ALM

[houkbsdov]

Bagwan please look again at this video and let me know where exactly Lewis used any draft ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXVT4CO6ALM

If Lewis said himself that he got into the tow of Kimi why can't you guys accept he did?