FIA confidence vote on Max Mosley & ADAC reaction

[A.F.F.]

I vaguely remember a rather rather bitter, yet funny post few years back about hitting Max Mosley in the head with a shovel, can't for the life of me remember did it originate here or in F1 side.

I don't think it would work thought. Turns about our Max is so twisted he would probably get sexual pleasure from it and asked for more. :

[Finni]

There would be huge difference if only these two things would be right:

- Three drivers per team. More competition. I would say that with only few manufacturer this it's huge difference to have three competitive crews instead two. Money is not big factor with this. Watch how easely teams are able to run second teams with little sponsorship (little compared to teams whole budget).

- Selection of rallies. Rallying is at its best in fast and spectacular gravel roads. There should be less asphalt rallies and slow rough rallies and more beatiful spectacles like Argentina or New Zealand.

Imagine that few last years there had been three drivers in every work-team and better rallies. It would seem all different.

[jonkka]

One penalty so the championship isn't ruined, yet not a thought to the other championship for a minor offence. They just seem to be applied Ad-hoc. Strange...???

That is correct assessment because they are applied ad-hoc. The highest body that any disciplinary action can be taken is FIA International Court of Appeal and beneath that, any punishment is handed out by sport-specific bodies which in WRC are the stewards of the rally in question. Amongst them there is only one permanent member (Nasir Hoosein) and all others are more or less national figures.

I don't know how things are in F1 (and for the record, I don't care).

What comes to rules, there are lot of passages where penalty and severity of it are left to discretion of the stewards. Which is good because every situation is different and unique but of course can lead to different level of punishment for similar offenses.

[jonkka]

You're taking this off-topic but no matter, you also make good points (though I partially disagree).

- Three drivers per team. (snip) Money is not big factor with this. Watch how easely teams are able to run second teams with little sponsorship (little compared to teams whole budget).

This is not as simple thing as it may seem. Allowing three drivers per team would put richer teams in better position (and surely nobody would support the idea of allowing one manufacturer to "buy" it's way into title, no?). In principle, if only the sporting side is considered, I support this scheme. Allowing three drivers would get more out of the same event without unduly increasing the costs.

But at the same time there is the question how to level the playing field between the rich teams able to hire Sainz, McRae and Loeb (like Citroen did in 2003) while poorer must settle to Loix, Schwarz, Stohl and Valimaki (like Hyundai did in 2003)? One attempt was the "young 3rd driver" -rule which was quickly overturned, another is allowing only two pre-nominated cars to score and there surely are many other variations as well.

Would the extra car and PR value of that without points scoring opportunity be big enough incentive for at least some teams to run 3rd car? I think so, they are doing it already in a limited scale. Then again, that would allow the third driver to test new parts or settings for that team and again push the envelope further compared to poorer teams.

So, in that sense the B-team with restricted technical rules (no parts homologated later than start of the season) is rather good compromise.

There should be less asphalt rallies

I disagree. Even if that means Loeb will have guaranteed easy wins I still think that tarmac must play a significant role in WRC. Most of populace never drive on gravel and while asphalt rallying isn't as spectacular, WRC is still the top formula and world champion should demonstrate versatility. What is good portion of tarmac to gravel is open to debate, of course.