Bill Oursler on the Rear Wheel Skid of the FIA
One has to wonder sometimes about the Federation International de
L’Automobile. Earlier this year there was the crisis over the sexual habits of
its president Max Mosley, now there is another following the decision to take
away Lewis Hamilton’s victory at the Belgium Grand Prix. According to the
FIA stewards, Hamilton was penalized 25 seconds for improving his position
late in the race by short cutting a chicane in a fight for the lead with Ferrari’s
Kimi Raikkonen.
The problem is that the video tape simply doesn’t support that judgment, the
tape clearly showing that Hamilton did in fact drop back to his original
position behind Raikkonen, if ever so briefly. Nevertheless, the FIA officials
apparently saw it, or interpreted it differently, those lost 25 seconds costing
the McLaren driver his fifth win of 2008, and handing the triumph to
Raikkonen’s Ferrari teammate Felipe Massa. That judgment put Massa two
points closer to Hamilton in the title chase, rather than Hamilton gaining
those two points himself over his opposition. Moreover, it strengthened
Ferrari’s hold on the constructors’ championship, rather than weakening it.
“Controversial” would be a polite way of describing the reaction to the
decision, however, whether or not it changes the outcome of the World
Championship is not as important as the possible long term effects on
Formula One in particular, and the sport as a whole. Mosley’s springtime
escapades did little to help the good humor of those who pay hundreds of
millions of dollars to participate in F-1 each year. Now, the appearance that
Mosley’s underlings may have pulled off a robbery at Hamilton’s and
McLaren’s expense in Belgium seems only to have re-enforced the notion
that at best the FIA is out of control, and at worst out of touch with reality.
Either way, those writing the checks are faced with the fact that increasingly
they are investing in an arena that is giving them little but negative returns,
rather than the positive image boost which is clear is the rational that led
them to F-1 in the first place.
From the bigger picture viewpoint it is the latter issue which might not simply
level the currently uneven playing field between the sports car racing universe
and F-1, but which ultimately, and more importantly could well promote
sports cars, both prototypes and their GT counterparts to the top of the rung
of the industry, destroying the highly successful efforts of the last three
decades by Bernie Ecclestone to make and keep Formula One as the
premier form of racing around the globe.
Clearly, since the golden age of sports car competition during the late 1960’s
and the first years of the 1970’s, the seemly endless battles over the
individual agendas of its leaders have done little to help lift the community out
of its second tier position. Just as clearly though are the machinations of
Ecclestone and Mosley to restrict sports cars to the confines of a farm as far
away as possible from the center court stage on which F-1 plays. Whenever
the sports car set has gained ground as it did in the latter part of the 1980’s,
Messrs. Ecclestone and Mosley have moved to knock it back.
Evidence of the effect of those efforts can be seen in the cancellation of the
FIA’s World Sports Car series in the early 1990’s because, according to the
FIA, there was too little interest in it. For many, while conceding there was
more than a little truth to be found in that contention, there was also the
undisputable fact that the low level of interest was directly attributable to the
high cost of the 3.5-liter sports car prototype formula imposed on the
community by Ecclestone and Mosley.
For whatever the reasons, Formula One in the early years of the 21st century
has become ever increasingly complex and unfathomable with regulations
changing at a moment’s notice, and rules enforcement appearing rooted far
more in whim than anything else. In the past, because of its vast audience
the check writers were forced to simply put up with those whims and
machinations because there were no alternatives. Today there are. Not only
that, but those alternatives are ever more free of FIA control, which by
extension means beyond the reach of Ecclestone and Mosley.
In previous times those in charge of the sports car world bowed to the wishes
of the FIA and its managers; something not true today. The extreme example
of this new attitude can be found here in North America where the France
family owned Grand American Road Racing Association opted out of the FIA
universe and wrote its own regulations for its Rolex Sports Car Series, caring
little whether anyone else, the FIA included liked them or not. Others have
been slightly less radical, including the L’Automobile Club du L’Ouest, which
has tried to co-ordinate its scriptures, at least in terms of its production car
divisions with those of the world governing body. Yet, Le Mans, its Euro-
centric Le Mans Series, and the American Le Mans Series established here
by Don Panoz using the ACO’s technical regulations have maintained a near
total independence in terms of goals and the best ways to each those goals.
That independence has led to highly sophisticated, high performance vehicles
that, as has been the case with F-1, allow major manufacturers to
demonstrate and promote themselves and their technological capabilities to
the maximum before their customer base. In short, from a commercial
viewpoint, sports cars have become an increasingly attractive tool to help
achieve sales goals.
Incorporated within this new found attractiveness is the fact that the
technology exploration has been green, promotion new renewable fuels and
new alternatives to the traditional gasoline powered internal combustion
powerplants of the past. Indeed, who would have thought ten years ago that
Le Mans and the ALMS would see the top prototypes dominated by diesels,
whose new natural gas based fuels are the first step to a new energy era that
will soon include hybrids, and possibly within the near future, hydrogen cells.
Indeed, the ALMS’ upcoming Petit Le Mans event will feature its “Green
Challenge” which will spotlight the use of bio-based ethanol fuels.
Like anything else, predicting the future is problematical at best, and there
are many unresolved issues within the sports car universe that could
sidetrack any rise in its stature. Yet, with all the troubles facing Formula One,
most especially its image on and off the track, and with the sports car folks
appearing to have a new found focus that relates to the real world concerns of
nearly everyone, while at the same time keeping an extremely attractive
performance package, we may well see a dramatic shift back to a time when
sports car were a first cabin affair.
Bill Oursler
September 2008
HAMILTON AND THE FIA PART II
Eventually the bills come due. America and the rest of the world have found
that out recently in the current financial crisis that has the potential to bring
the global economy down in a crash that will make the Great Depression of
the 1920’s seem puny. Despite this example staring it in the face, the
Federation International de L’Automobile continues to defy logic in its
arrogance that it is immune from bill paying. Indeed, one has to wonder
whether or not the FIA is aware that there are such things as bills. At the
Italian Grand Prix FIA President Max Mosley had what the English call “a go”
at the British press, presumably for that institution’s criticism of the way the
FIA under his leadership is being run.
Unfortunately for Mosley, criticism is a fundamental democratic right. And,
while the media itself can be criticized for how it covers the news, in the case
of Mosley and the FIA, there would appear to be every justification for its
attitude towards the governing body and its all to often bizarre way it oversees
its motorsport responsibilities, the latest example of which was the hearing in
which McLaren driver Lewis Hamilton’s appeal of the FIA actions stripping
him of his victory in the Belgium Grand Prix was turned down.
Although most right thinking folk who have seen the tapes of the Belgium
incident fully believe that Hamilton did comply with the FIA’s scriptures about
not improving one’s position through cutting chicanes, it was the logic used
by the appeals court that itself defied logic. Instead of ruling on the merits,
the court refused to overturn the time penalty handed down by the stewards
that moved him from first to second because the court said that it was the
equivalent of a “drive through penalty” which by FIA regulations is not
reviewable. In short, the court’s rational was that Hamilton and McLaren had
no right to make the appeal in the first place. On the face of it, one can’t
argue with the decision – except for one small pesky detail: if that is in fact
how the rules read, then why in heaven’s name did the FIA grant him an
appeals hearing in the first place?
In 2004, U.S. Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry lost the election
in part because of his “flip flop on the Iraq War,” the Republicans pointing to
Kerry’s confused stance of “I was for it before I was against,” as an example
of the kind of leadership the country shouldn’t accept. Regardless of one’s
real world political passions, the logic behind this four-year-old bit of theatrics
applies in the case of Hamilton’s hearing, i.e.: “We’ll let him appeal before
telling him that he can’t appeal.”
Given that, one has to ask what kind of message is the FIA sending? Is it
one of mere incompetence, or is it one with an agenda attached? Last year,
at Brazil the two cars in that finished immediately in front of Hamilton, didn’t
pass post race technical inspection because of the temperature of the fuel
they had on board. In most cases, those cars would have, and should have
been disqualified. Instead the FIA said it had no way to enforce the regulation,
and let it go. If you know you can’t enforce a rule, then why is it on the
books?
But, then this is world of the FIA, and in the Land of Oz anything seemingly is
possible. Consider for a moment the great McLaren-Ferrari spy scandal of
2007 in which to this day, if one reads the World Council’s decision there is
no direct proof that McLaren did modify its cars using information pilfered from
Ferrari. Rather there is only supposition, which is most courts is not enough
for conviction. Then again, this is the Land of Oz. Over last winter, it was
revealed that a McLaren engineer hired by Renault brought with him technical
information from his former employer. That information somehow found its
way into the Renault data base. Was any action taken against Renault? No,
Renault was let off the hook because the FIA said that there was no proof
that it had been incorporated into Renault’s design structure.
Now, I’m not one to judge, but the words “double standard” do come to mind
in this situation. Then there is the matter of Mosley’s own sexual escapades
of this past spring, which he dismissed as “a private” matter (and, which to be
fair was so judged by a court which awarded him damages against the British
tabloid that published the story). Private or not, Mosley’s actions and
judgment clearly brought the sport into “disrepute, something the FIA has
rules against doing. However, since it was Mosley, noting happened. But,
then why am I not surprised, after all it is the Land of Oz.
There are obvious comparisons here. However they are so obvious they need
not be made. Yet, as I said when this matter first arose, this blog is devoted
sports cars, a segment of motorsport in which the FIA has lost much of its
control. What I suggested then remains true now; namely that those who
write the checks that support Formula One may decide to have a rethink
about whether or not to continue that support given the way the FIA’s mode of
meeting its responsibilities in governing the sport. When I wrote on this
subject I raised the possibility that there could be benefits to be found in this
mess for the sports car side of the house, particularly since the prototype
arena is more and more becoming a hothouse for the technologies automotive
manufacturers will need to be the challenges of a world short on energy and
seeking a greener future.
Times have changed since I produced that first column. Now we’re in a
financial crunch, and traditionally when that occurs, everyone tends to close
their wallets and pocketbooks. Activities such as motorsport are particularly
vulnerable to this and the FIA’s arrogance and its belief in its own self
importance most certainly could cause trouble for Formula One. More
importantly it could also cause trouble for the whole of international
motorsport, for why should people spend money with us if we can keep our
own house in order? And, make no mistake to the outside world, the one
where the financial; resources are to be found, we in motorsport live in a
single house. One doesn’t know in these uncertain times what will happen.
But, one can clearly see that nothing good is going to come from a governing
body seemingly operates under the notion that absolute power corrupts
absolutely.
Bill Oursler
October 2008
|
