GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: cosworth151 on November 07, 2017, 12:15:39 PM
-
The recent burst of controversial decisions by the race stewards has led to calls for a permanent slate of stewards. Race Director Charlie Whiting doesn't agree:
"We are discussing this all the time," Whiting said, "but we believe that the appointment of four permanent stewards for the whole year will only lead to many new questions.
"I do not want to go into details, but at the moment, we consider our direction to be more reasonable."
http://autoweek.com/article/formula-one/f1-race-director-charlie-whiting-not-interested-permanent-race-stewards
-
Why not go into details? It's not like we need a thousand pages about how organizations like the FIA have a history of corruption, so this skirts the issue.
Or to say that relying on volunteers saves a few dollars as well as generating interest in the sport as fan favourites make an appearance.
Or to say that it's a taxing job, flying out to glamorous locations and watching racing for a couple hours, and burned out officials aren't good for the sport.
Or I'd even accept, we understand it's a show first, and a sport second, and professional stewards would have to call the race as a sport and not focus on the fans.
-
Todt gives the job to people who support his agenda and his re-election.
-
The FIA tried having one permanent steward in 2007-2008. It was a total disaster because he turned out to be, if anything, more biased than the other stewards. During that time, the stewards also made calls in favour of Ferrari that made no sense and were against the rules. The reason emerged when his contract was not renewed: he'd most recently worked for Ferrari (albeit a few years prior to the FIA appointment), in two years where they were one of the two disputants in the title. The other stewards saw the appointee as a "first among equals" and rarely challenged his assertions. There is no appetite for returning to one chief steward among those who remember that era, let alone four.
In the current system, the National Sporting Authority appoints one person from their own stewarding organisation. That person must have done at least 6 national-level weekends and have a clean record at National Sporting Authority level.
The FIA appoints one driver steward and two formally-trained stewards of international standing. The latter have to have worked at least 6 complete national-level weekends, I think they also have to have done one international-level weekend and they definitely are required to do one F1 stewarding observation and one weekend of training prior to taking on the role. All of the FIA-appointed stewards must be in good standing with the FIA and their NSAs regarding correct stewarding procedure*. One of these (it's never the driver steward, and it's strictly determined on seniority) is appointed as chief steward. The chief steward has additional responsibilities to ensure that things run smoothly, but has no additional power in penalty decision-making.
Volunteers are a bit harder to justify. Traditionally, all of motorsport uses only amateurs, though some rounds do in fact pay stewards a small stipend (Middle Eastern rounds pay for food for all their officials, I think, and the Australian Grand Prix pays out a couple of hundred dollars, typically meant to cover the hotel fee at a very basic hotel that only the local steward would likely accept...) The FIA has long resisted this approach, because it believes it would induce stewards to request, or tracks to otherwise compete with each other by spending money on perks. This is considered a risk of bias towards local competitors in international and (in large nations) national events alike, and also believes it would change the nature of the job: that it would attract more people doing it for the lifestyle and fewer who cared about the actual quality of stewarding. Occasionally the FIA remembers that it's in charge of a whole sport and not just one series.
* - Yes, it is possible to breach the regulations on this score; in F1 the most recent confirmed and penalised incident happened in USA 2001. Jordan got disqualified for a car that was underweight, which Jordan found quite strange as one of the stewards (I think it was the local one) supposedly confirming this was known to be on a plane home at the time the paperwork was allegedly signed. They appealed and won - once the steward in question confirmed they were on a plane, having been dismissed by the other stewards before the Jordan's scrutineering was complete, Jordan could not have lost. It was never discovered if the Jordan was genuinely underweight, but the three stewards confirmed as still present at the time were required to hand over their licences, and never stewarded a F1 weekend again.
-
I think the reference to a 'recent burst of controversial decisions' is miss-leading and I am only aware of one 'call for a permanent slate of stewards' and that came from Verstappen because he wasn't happy that they spotted him cheating.
I think stewards decisions have been much better this year because they have been more lenient - far more 50/50 clashes have been allowed as 'racing incidents' which is surely what we want. There could only be one decision for Verstappen's illegal overtake. He was completely off the track and got a lasting benefit from the move - therefore it was obviously dangerous and illegal.
-
The FIA tried having one permanent steward in 2007-2008. It was a total disaster because he turned out to be, if anything, more biased than the other stewards. During that time, the stewards also made calls in favour of Ferrari that made no sense and were against the rules. The reason emerged when his contract was not renewed: he'd most recently worked for Ferrari (albeit a few years prior to the FIA appointment), in two years where they were one of the two disputants in the title. The other stewards saw the appointee as a "first among equals" and rarely challenged his assertions. There is no appetite for returning to one chief steward among those who remember that era, let alone four.
In the current system, the National Sporting Authority appoints one person from their own stewarding organisation. That person must have done at least 6 national-level weekends and have a clean record at National Sporting Authority level.
The FIA appoints one driver steward and two formally-trained stewards of international standing. The latter have to have worked at least 6 complete national-level weekends, I think they also have to have done one international-level weekend and they definitely are required to do one F1 stewarding observation and one weekend of training prior to taking on the role. All of the FIA-appointed stewards must be in good standing with the FIA and their NSAs regarding correct stewarding procedure*. One of these (it's never the driver steward, and it's strictly determined on seniority) is appointed as chief steward. The chief steward has additional responsibilities to ensure that things run smoothly, but has no additional power in penalty decision-making.
Volunteers are a bit harder to justify. Traditionally, all of motorsport uses only amateurs, though some rounds do in fact pay stewards a small stipend (Middle Eastern rounds pay for food for all their officials, I think, and the Australian Grand Prix pays out a couple of hundred dollars, typically meant to cover the hotel fee at a very basic hotel that only the local steward would likely accept...) The FIA has long resisted this approach, because it believes it would induce stewards to request, or tracks to otherwise compete with each other by spending money on perks. This is considered a risk of bias towards local competitors in international and (in large nations) national events alike, and also believes it would change the nature of the job: that it would attract more people doing it for the lifestyle and fewer who cared about the actual quality of stewarding. Occasionally the FIA remembers that it's in charge of a whole sport and not just one series.
* - Yes, it is possible to breach the regulations on this score; in F1 the most recent confirmed and penalised incident happened in USA 2001. Jordan got disqualified for a car that was underweight, which Jordan found quite strange as one of the stewards (I think it was the local one) supposedly confirming this was known to be on a plane home at the time the paperwork was allegedly signed. They appealed and won - once the steward in question confirmed they were on a plane, having been dismissed by the other stewards before the Jordan's scrutineering was complete, Jordan could not have lost. It was never discovered if the Jordan was genuinely underweight, but the three stewards confirmed as still present at the time were required to hand over their licences, and never stewarded a F1 weekend again.
Well put Ali.
How hard would it have been for Charlie to say that?
-
How hard would it have been for Charlie to say that?
Alia is clear and honest, Charlie is a politician, need I say more?
-
Also, I don't think Charlie would trust his audience to sit still long enough to read all that unless circumstances forced them to do so :(
-
I think the reference to a 'recent burst of controversial decisions' is miss-leading and I am only aware of one 'call for a permanent slate of stewards' and that came from Verstappen because he wasn't happy that they spotted him cheating.
I think stewards decisions have been much better this year because they have been more lenient - far more 50/50 clashes have been allowed as 'racing incidents' which is surely what we want. There could only be one decision for Verstappen's illegal overtake. He was completely off the track and got a lasting benefit from the move - therefore it was obviously dangerous and illegal.
100% agree