FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

Discuss the sport you love with other motorsport fans

Formula One related discussion.
#79139
From autosport.com:

By Steven English Wednesday, November 5th 2008, 14:41 GMT

The FIA has revealed that it will introduce greater transparency into decisions made by Formula One stewards next season.

In the wake of the controversy that surrounded Lewis Hamilton's penalty at Spa-Francorchamps, it was decided at a meeting of the World Motor Sport Council in Paris today that decisions will be better explained to the public from now on.

A written explanation of each decision will be published on the FIA's website, rather than just the confirmations of decisions that are made public at present.

The FIA has also pledged to make available any film evidence relevant to stewards' decisions that may not have been seen by the public on both the FIA and FOM websites.

A new replay system will also be introduced to the officiating process with the intention that all incidents are investigated and any action is taken during the race itself, unless it is necessary to seek further evidence after the event.

The FIA also announced that trainee stewards - nominated by their nation's governing body and selected by the FIA - will attend five grands prix next season in an observation role. Any national stewards officiating on a Formula One race for the first time must have observed at least one grand prix in this way to obtain their stewards' super licence. A short CV of all trainee stewards will also be posted on the FIA website.

It has long been argued that at least one former grand prix driver should be among the stewards and the FIA also confirmed that ex-racers are eligible to obtain their national stewarding licence and graduate to the super licence.

The WMSC also rubber-stamped the plan to extend engine life to three races from next year.


Well, these measures will improve things, but it's not all fool proof. Writing down how you came to decision does not make it any more reliable or true. And there is still the problem of Alan Donnelly... Moreover, the rules will still be littered with numerous grey areas.
#79161
just on the engine snippet at the end. how can they introduce a 3 race life span when they are in an engine freeze? :banghead:

The engines are being "unfrozen" to try and get more performance parity between them all. The FIA haven't been very clear about this. Is everybody allowed to do some development work on their engine? And what is going to happen when it becomes clear some teams are more savvy than others on the engine front? Will we see another engine freeze amnesty? The fact is the FIA are treating the symptoms and not dealing with the causes of the problem.
#79225
The FIA also announced that trainee stewards - nominated by their nation's governing body and selected by the FIA - will attend five grands prix next season in an observation role. Any national stewards officiating on a Formula One race for the first time must have observed at least one grand prix in this way to obtain their stewards' super licence. A short CV of all trainee stewards will also be posted on the FIA website.


Just one? A marshal has to do a minimum ten days on track plus two training days before he moves up to the next grade. What if the race the steward observes is particularly uneventful? I say 5 should be the minimum.

That said, overall it's a step in the right direction at least.
#79245
They must think they overtsepped the mark at Spa, well thats something. I'll believe changes for the better when i see them!
#79316
Right, if the FIA want us to even believe they're doing something about the steward stupidity, they can tell us now about why the Stewards penalised Lewis at Spa and Bourdais at Fuji.

I'm waiting... :)
#79539
At least FIA is moving in the right direction with the stewards, and by doing this it seems they are admitting their present system is flawed.


This. And the fact the steward must be trained and licensed means they should actually know what passing and aggressive driving are vs. unwarranted mistakes.
#79541
At least FIA is moving in the right direction with the stewards, and by doing this it seems they are admitting their present system is flawed.


This. And the fact the steward must be trained and licensed means they should actually know what passing and aggressive driving are vs. unwarranted mistakes.

Now that would be cool!! :)
#80413
From Planet F1:

Steward Changes Are Missing The Point
Thursday 6th November 2008

The FIA has launched its latest attempt to inject some credibility into the stewarding process. Andrew Davies is wary that it's nothing more than a box of fudge.

Lewis Hamilton's fifth place at the Brazilian Grand Prix was a relief. And not just to the people who wanted the McLaren driver to win the World Chapionship. His four points for fifth place on Sunday took him one point higher than Felipe Massa and gave him the World Championship he well and truly deserved.

It was a big relief to those F1 fans who didn't want to see the winter months mired by talk of outrageously inconsistent stewarding decisions.

Two races earlier Felipe Massa had been given an extra point by the Japanese GP race stewards in what is widely regarded as the most incomprehensible F1 stewarding decision in the last ten years. Perhaps of all time. When Massa collided with the Toro Rosso of Sebastien Bourdais it was widely expected that if anyone was going to collect a penalty it would be the Ferrari driver.

There was utter disblief when Bourdais, who had been racing for position and been struck by Massa from the side, was relegated down the order enabling Massa to finish one place higher.

Had the rain failed to fall as hard as it did on that fateful last lap, then Timo Glock would have scrabbled to fifth, Hamilton would have tied Massa on championship points, and the single point that the FIA handed Massa at Mount Fuji would have won him the title.

Pete Gill's benchmark stewarding analysis has highlighted the woeful lack of consistency, transparency and comprehensibility from F1's referees over the last season. At least they didn't swing the final outcome.

Last year, as we were navigating our way through the repercussions of the Ferrari/McLaren/Renault spygate saga, Max Mosley came up with his great crusading mission statement - "in the interests of sporting fairness." 2008 has seemingly been all about sporting unfairness towards one team.

The sheer spectacle of the final race, combined with a whole pile of new technical regulations that will make the 2009 cars look like some bastardised one-make series, might produce enough smoke to cloud over the sorry stewarding issue. It shouldn't.

We came within two corners of the World Championship being decided by three men with less combined F1 experience than a pop-up toaster. Well, maybe a little more. Unless something is radically changed, it could happen again.

The changes the FIA have announced in Paris yesterday may give us some more camera angles and a written explanation to decisions, but there is little substantial change to the idea that the stewards are Max's fiefdom, and Allan Donnelly the serf overseer. And most important of all, there is still no permanent steward in place to grant decisions some consistency.

When Tony Scott-Andrew was in charge as the permanent steward we had no endless arguments about stewarding decisions, or any questions about explanations, or calls for more cameras, or requests to see their CVs. It was because there was a level of consistency there.

What the FIA are proposing now still doesn't allow for consistency or independence, the two things most needed. And as you can see from reading Pete Gill's feature, the trend in the past is to make an announcement (such as the nationality of race stewards) in an obscure part of the off-season and then not stick to it.

More replays, more decisions during the race and more explanations are all good. What Max needs to do now is go the whole hog.

    See our F1 related articles too!