FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[robains]

I realize FIA/F1 is heavily bias towards Ferrari ... they sorta have to be given current viewership numbers of F1 racing. BUT, and a big BUT ... how on earth is :

1. Driving too slow = 5 sec penalty
2. Crashing into another driver = 5 sec penalty

I get it, there is the "Ferrari factor" where reality gets mysteriously "adjusted" ... but how the heck can the FIA quantify both of those actions are being "the same" in relation to the penalty issued?

Rob.

[overboost]

This is borrowed from another place, sorry for the comment at the bottom. It does show though that the FIA Ferrari thing is a bit of a myth. Merc seems to have the inside track with them these days especially with the engine rules.

Regarding the penalties for collisions and most other things there seems to be little 'standardization' on penalties. In the case of Vettel it just seemed to be a great start that left him in a tight position. Not a racing incident but on the other hand not to severe either.

[gdh]

Max thought that Seb got off easy with the 5 sec vs his 10 sec penalty.

[sagi58]

Some urban legends have no basis; but, you know...
if you keep repeating them, they must be true, eh?

[robains]

I don't see how showing more "wrongs" makes a "right" or how "going to slow" is the same as "causing a collision"?

I can provide a VERY LONG LONG list of actions or lack of actions involving Ferrari beyond the very bias and small subset you've provided. But again, it doesn't really change my question/point of contention.

[myownalias]

Yes, the penalty for causing a collision was ludicrously light, I think most fans agree on that. It is another case of inconsistent stewardship, in my opinion, I think a 10 second stop/go would be a more fair punishment as Bottas suffered floor damage from the collision and could not run at his ultimate pace.

The FIA don't have the same Ferrari bias today, that does seem to have been switched to Mercedes in recent years, but for a lot of the time during the late 90s / 2000s, Ferrari certainly go the rub of the green, and until today, no other team has a veto on rules like Ferrari, unless I have missed something?

[sagi58]

I don't see how showing more "wrongs" makes a "right" or how "going to slow" is the same as "causing a collision"?

I can provide a VERY LONG LONG list of actions or lack of actions involving Ferrari beyond the very bias and small subset you've provided. But again, it doesn't really change my question/point of contention.

I'm sure you can; but, as YOU just stated, two wrongs don't make a right.
This is today. It should be seen as a clean slate and NOT a chance to even the score.
That's what TRUE competition is about, NOT levelling the playing field.

[sagi58]

Todt explaining the Ferrari "veto"...

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... gine-veto/

Read through to the end, to see that it's not an omnipotent right to do as they please.

[myownalias]

I find it really hard to believe that all other teams would allow Ferrari to have a veto on rules, regardless of the caveats.

Bottom line, unless every team has the same 'power' in the sport, we can never have a level playing field.

[Howerton]

I always prefer PhenGold and find it really hard to believe that all other teams would allow Ferrari to have a veto on rules, regardless of the caveats.

Bottom line, unless every team has the same 'power' in the sport, we can never have a level playing field.

This is not how the world works though. There can't be complete equality, and perhaps there even shouldn't be. Everyone's trying to get the best deal for themselves. If Ferrari was a bit more successful doing that in the past, you should blame your team for not doing better. Simple as that.

[sagi58]

Hello, Howerton!!

[myownalias]

This is not how the world works though. There can't be complete equality, and perhaps there even shouldn't be. Everyone's trying to get the best deal for themselves. If Ferrari was a bit more successful doing that in the past, you should blame your team for not doing better. Simple as that.

Yes, but the governing body has to be equally fair to everyone competing in the sport, there are too many inconsistencies in the sport, such as the thinner tread tires at the behest of Mercedes, which they have won on two occasions using those tires. Teams will always try to get any advantage through bending of the rules or negotiating a better deal, but the governing body needs to rebuff these sort of deals. You imagine if Manchester United started every game 1 - 0 up, this in my mind, is kinda, whats happening in F1, and has done for years.

Also, welcome to the forum, nice to see some fresh blood around here.

[John Doe]

FIA's bias towards Ferrari is not new. Ferrari is encouraged by this 5 seconds laughter, so called penalty, Raikkonen drives deliberately on to Hamilton to put out of race and gets only 10 seconds penalty in Silverstone. Raikkonen isn't hurt by 10 seconds. The aim is put Hamilton out of place and he succeeded. That is their way of playing the game dirty and end Hamilton's conquer in Silverstone.

[overboost]

Hamilton choked on the start. It was his race to win, all he needed to do was to keep his cool and drive away but he messed it up.

Also the big benefit of the custom 'merc spec' tires allowed Hamilton to get three places of track position by not pitting and allowed him to take second place including #2 Bottas moving out of his way.

[darwin dali]

FIA's bias towards Ferrari is not new. Ferrari is encouraged by this 5 seconds laughter, so called penalty, Raikkonen drives deliberately on to Hamilton to put out of race and gets only 10 seconds penalty in Silverstone. Raikkonen isn't hurt by 10 seconds. The aim is put Hamilton out of place and he succeeded. That is their way of playing the game dirty and end Hamilton's conquer in Silverstone.