- 33,150

- Hammerhead Garage
Formula One shouldn't be a democracy. It currently is a democracy, and it's completely dysfunctional.This is a man that has said on camera that democracy is rubbish and thinks dictatorships are the way to go.
Formula One shouldn't be a democracy. It currently is a democracy, and it's completely dysfunctional.This is a man that has said on camera that democracy is rubbish and thinks dictatorships are the way to go.
It's derived from Christoffel, an archaic Dutch version of Christopher.
I thought it was from St Offal the patron saint of kidneys.Don't ruin it with logic, dammit.
Like I have said before, when Chelsea play Arsenal and there's a penalty in the box, the Chelsea and Arsenal managers aren't consulted on whether a penalty should be taken, who should take it, and where it should be taken from - so why does it happen in Formula One?The teams shouldn't be given a day in anything that goes on.
Like I have said before, when Chelsea play Arsenal and there's a penalty in the box, the Chelsea and Arsenal managers aren't consulted on whether a penalty should be taken, who should take it, and where it should be taken from - so why does it happen in Formula One?
By all means, consult the teams. Get their input. Value their opinions. Incorporate their ideas into the rules ... but as soon as you give them regulatory power, you give them the power to influence the regulations in their favour.
x4Yeah that was both weird and cool, never seen three cars from the same team on track like that before.
Formula One shouldn't be a democracy. It currently is a democracy, and it's completely dysfunctional.
Because they still had a vote, but either way giving teams the ability to vote is the reason why basically every proposal in the last few years has been dropped, no one wants to give up their competitive advantage while others want a chance to get itHow is it a democracy when the teams unanimously agreed to revert to the old qualifying format but when it went to the FIA that option wasn't available?
Because they still had a vote, but either way giving teams the ability to vote is the reason why basically every proposal in the last few years has been dropped, no one wants to give up their competitive advantage while others want a chance to get it
And that shouldn't t be the case. Ferrari and Manor should have equal deciding power which is to say none. Ferrari has vetoed quite a few ideas and they're abusing their power as a major team. Someone needs to realize that Ferrari needs F1 more than F1 needs Ferrari.I agree that the teams will always vote in their best interest, a good example of why this is not a good system is what happened to Champ Car, but F1 is not a democracy and never has been. Ferrari has far more sway then Manor for example.
Dicmocracy.I don't know if there is a better word for it but the current system is a sort of halfway between dictatorship and democracy.
I don't know if there is a better word for it but the current system is a sort of halfway between dictatorship and democracy.
The current system has 6 votes from the FIA, 6 votes from the commercial rights holders (Bernie on behalf of CVC) and a vote each for 6 teams which are currently Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Williams, Red Bull and Force India. The first five are currently fixed, the sixth is based on the highest finisher in the championship of the other teams, hence why it's currently FI.
So that is the democratic part of it but of course indeed that means the other teams don't have a vote. Then there is the fact that it's the FIA who have the ultimate power of what proposals are put up for voting in the first place, and Ferrari with their powerful Veto.
Suzie "Hungry like the" Wolff is quite chipper though with that mysterious accent
Bernie backs a surprise winner for Bahrain - "Lewis Hamilton"