Jean Todt’s Approval Rating IX

Posted on

| Written by

Are you happy with how F1 is being run by the FIA president?

Once every month at F1 Fanatic we look at how the president of the sport’s governing body, Jean Todt, is managing the championship.

Join in by casting your vote below.

FIA developments since the last approval rating

Ferrari team orders

Following the World Motor Sport Council’s verdict Todt, who did not take part in the deliberations, said there had not been enough evidence to punish Ferrari:

Before you say [they] are guilty you have to be able to prove that [they] are guilty.
Jean Todt

But the text of the WMSC decision contradicted that view, concluding Ferrari had used team orders:

It is self evident to the Judging Body of the WMSC that this was an implied team order using a message, and as such was contrary to article 39.1 [of the] Sporting Regulations.

The WMSC gave a different explanation for why Ferrari were not punished beyond the token fine already imposed by the race stewards, blaming “inconsistency in [the] application” of the rules on team orders. It asked for article 39.1 of the Sporting Regulations, which prohibits team orders, to be reviewed.

Since the verdict team principals of rival outfits have complained that the WMSC’s refusal to punish Ferrari for breaking the team orders rule leaves confusion over whether team orders can be used in future races.

13th F1 team

The WMSC decided none of the applicants for the vacant 13th team position in 2011 were suitable:

It was considered that none of the candidates met the requirements to be granted an entry into the Championship.

Consequently, the allocation of the 13th team will not be granted.

Read more: No 13th F1 team in 2011

2011 F1 calendar

The FIA has approved 20 races for inclusion in next year’s F1 calendar.

Read more: 2011 F1 calendar officially revealed with 20 races and season finale in Brazil

Staff licenses

The FIA is planning to set up a licensing scheme for top F1 staff.

This follows the FIA’s difficulty in preventing Flavio Briatore and Pat Symonds from participating in the sport following their involvement in the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix scandal.

Read more: Top F1 staff to have licenses

Road safety

F1 drivers could have their racing licenses endorsed for breaking the rules while driving on public roads under a new FIA plan:

The Code will be amended to clarify that if an International Super Licence holder is involved in a serious road traffic offence recognised by a national police authority, the FIA, depending on the severity of the case, may issue a warning or refer the matter to the International Disciplinary Tribunal, which may temporarily or indefinitely withdraw the competitor’s International Super Licence.

Read more: F1 drivers’ road manners under scrutiny

Jean Todt’s Approval Rating

As an F1 fan, do you approve or disapprove of the way Jean Todt is handling his job as FIA President?

  • No opinion (12%)
  • Disapprove (43%)
  • Approve (45%)

Total Voters: 1,150

 Loading ...

Tell us how you voted and explain why in the comments.

Jean Todt’s Approval Ratings

DateApproveDisapproveNo opinion
August 201060%17%23%
July 201054%24%22%
June 201053%23%24%
May 201078%8%14%
April 201063%14%23%
March 201053%24%23%
February 201057%14%29%
January 201055%16%29%
Jean Todt's approval rating, January-August 2010

Image © FIA

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

110 comments on “Jean Todt’s Approval Rating IX”

  1. Well, one polemic decision about Ferrari, and all of a sudden, big disapproval.
    Short memory everyone, or is this Ferrari decision enough to topple 8 months of good work?

    1. Maybe it was that bad a decision in most peoples minds that it was more than enough to blight his presidency so far.

      You just cannot say “we couldn’t do anything because there’s no proof”, but still give them a $100k fine. It’s so utterly indefensible.

      1. Technically, Todt isn’t responsable for the decision. He withdrew from the vote if I am not too mistaken

        1. That is true, but it’s fair to say he’s not concerned about one of his committees saying in effect, “yes, they broke a rule, but we’re not going to give them a meaningful punishment”.

          Based on what he said afterwards, he seems to have come to a completely different conclusion from the WMSC, which is very strange.

          1. I fully agree there. Todt is responsible for the FIA now. It is a good thing to (at least appear) to distance himself from the ruling procedures himself.

            But him claiming there was not enough evidence before the complete ruling was published and the WMSC ruling Ferrari then guilty but not being punished more on pretty dubious grounds make it al seem too political and shying away from a real desicion with some kind of points loss and race ban, be it suspended.

            And the handling of the 13th team, taking this until the start of September, only to annouce no entrant is chosen, makes it even more of a farce. Who is he kidding, if they were not going to give it why not say so in June/July?

          2. Saying something in a press interview and in court are two totally different matters. Ferrari didn’t appeal against stewards’ fine, but they surely would start an endless legal battle had WMSC punished them further. In my humble opinion the way the whole case ended was very clever on FIA side – Ferrari was marked out as the bad guys and F1 was saved from yet another off-track drama.

          3. And that is what makes it political, isn’t it Bart. I don’t like it at all, it is giving in to a threat of legal action that is being used as extortion.

    2. It’s the approval rating for this month. So, people decide whether this month was worth of approval or disapproval.
      Disapproving now doesn’t mean the whole 8 months were bad. From my point of view, this rating is related to the Ferrari team order decision but only for the month in which the decision was made.

    3. It is was his first major test and quite simply he failed to deliver. Especially considering they were found guilty and it was decided that a 100k fine was sufficient, a total joke in my opinion.

      1. Todt had no involvement in the WMSC case that decided to punish Ferrari no further for the team orders breach. He specifically delegated responsibility for that case to his deputies, in order to avoid accusations of bias.

        That was a sensible move, even if – judging by the general tone of the response to this article – it has been completely ignored by many. For that reason I voted approve for the first time.

        1. Judging by quite a few of the replies so far people disapproved of his comments afterwards. For me that wipes out his decision to stay out of things. It is, after all, an overall rating. If Ferrari had been thrown out of the championship I suspect there would still have been a majority of negative votes if he had adopted a similar stance afterwards.

    4. To be fair, I voted disapprove both because of the failure to provide an acceptable response time for selection of the 13th team and because of the road safety deal.

      There was plenty of interest in racing for next year and instead, they took their time in selecting someone so of course no one could be ready in time to not get cut by the 107% rule.

      It’s not their job to tell drivers how to act outside of the events and if it gets the drivers into trouble, that’s their (the driver’s and perhaps the team’s) problem.

      I know he wasn’t involved in the Ferrari deal and therefore don’t hold him accountable.

      1. I concur, the FIA met up and decided that after setting impossibly high entry requirements… None of the candidates for 13th met the entry requirements. Stupid FIA. I sense Ferrari’s influence in that decision, they hate all new teams.

    5. Surely this is a measure of his approval rating for the last period? for a total approval rating, just look at the chart.

      Perhaps the question should read ‘do you approve of the way JT has handled the presidency in the last x races?’

    6. Couldn’t agree more Holus. It’s childish and pathetic to blame Todt for the spineless inability of WMSC members to act responsibly.

      Yes, the WMSC decision on Ferrari team orders was among the worst examples of gutless surrender we’ve seen in F1, and there have been plenty of other examples of white flag waving in the murky past. But though Todt is far from blameless in tolerating the circumstances which led to this fiasco, he did not contribute to the final cowardly decision.( or lack of decision ! )

      And finally, Todt has done pretty damn well this year to strike a fair balance in his dealings with every warring faction in the pirana pool world of F1.

      Todt deserves cool appraisal, not ignorant petulance.

    7. It takes a long, long time to build up trust, but only one ‘suspicious’ incident to destroy it… especially in a sport not short of scandal.

      1. we all feared it woudl come to this once he took the helm of the FIA. and to his luck, the team order issue happened within his old team in which he himself ordered them over and over again… so it is hard to judge him fairly on that…

        i think the decision was good for the sport and title through and through, but if i were on the WMSC, i would consider fining the team and drivers by means of switching the positions and the points and giving the team a 25 point penalty as well as put it on probation for the rest of the season…that would be a good fair deterrent i think,,

    8. yes because if you brake rule you brake ….and no mater how long you make good work that will not put you in position to fix the results in any sports including F1

  2. Disprove, once again. I have voted so for the past 4 polls.

    1. That’s very interesting… but, why?

      1. mclaren fan perhaps?

        1. Why would being a Mclaren fan lead some to disapprove?

  3. when he was elected i said that i would judge him when ferrari ended up in the dog box and how the FIA would react to it. Im very unimpressed and could see the decision on team order coming from the moment Massa slowed down

  4. I was willing to give Todt a chance, but after the Hokenheim Ferrari disgrace I’m not so sure. Alonso was handed a victory that could end up securing the WDC for him and that seems utterly short sighted from the FIA.

    Webber was not penalised for his reckless move on Hamilton, which I believe was intended to take both of them out of the race; I cant understand what went on there, because that is also a decision that could effect the outcome of the WDC.

    I think we should hold praise for Todt, until we see a bit more consistent decision making from the FIA.

    1. which I believe was intended to take both of them out of the race

      Webber intended to take himself out of the race? Erm, no.

      1. Take both of them out. I just can’t see how Webber was ever going to pass Hamilton at that corner; it looked reckless if not intentional :)

        1. … So Webber is an idiot? Yeah why not… But I’m fairly sure he would have preferred Hamilton just to stay behind….

    2. I agree with you on the first paragraph, but what you say about Webber just does not make sense. Even Lewis directly after that nor McLaren did not have any sentiments for blaming him.

      And why on earth would he want to take himself out?

      1. You may want to look at the replay of the incident again. Webber was passed and then late braked into an increasigly diminishing gap. There was no way on earth that contact between the 2 cars was going to be avoided.

        As far as Webber was concerned, and his team told him on the radio, he was racing Hamilton for 3rd. There was nothing he could have done about Alonso and Vettel but if Hamilton got 3rd he, Webber, would have his championship lead considerably cut and if also passed by Button, who was on fresher tyres, he would have been level with Hamilton.

        I remember Webber being very vociferous about Hamiltons “dangerous driving” when passing ppl in the 2008 season. I wonder if he would have been as restrained as Hamilton was if the roles were reversed in Singapore?

        Anyway thats history, lets look forward to Japan and hopefully clean driving from the top five contenders.

        1. Hmmm, I thought it was a typo, but apparently not. Hamilton was passing Webber, not the other way around.

    3. You are very right ExParot, being Webber and Alonso under Briatore’s management, surely it was a team order from Flavio to Webber to crash against Hammilton so Alonso has free way to the tittle.
      Yes, yes, the whole world and part of the galaxy are against Hammilton…

    4. You sir have played too many videogames. If both were knocked out, he would’ve seen his gap to Alonso-Vettel-Button vanish in thin air. How ‘smart’ would that be?

    5. If both drivers had retired Alonso would be leading the WDC, and Vettel would be much closer to Webber in the standings. How would that have been better for Webber than if Hamilton had passed him? If you can explain that I might listen to the next thing you say.

    6. Usually in these cases the car behind survives tapping the lead car on the rear wheel.

      Button survived tapping Alonso on the rear wheel in Australia (and he went on to tap Schumacher). Liuzzi survived tapping Massa in Canada (a few times even).

      Accidents like this happen a lot and usually just the lead car spins or gets a puncture and that’s it.

      Hamilton was a bit too far ahead in Monza. So his front wheel got taken off from behind when he was trying to break and prevent an accident.

      It’s a pretty calculated risk just to keep a front wheel in.

      It’s odd that Massa did pretty much the same in 2008. Although Massa went a lot further and rammed into Hamilton going over the grass almost t-boning Hamilton. Massa did get a drive through for that one. His car was fine though and Hamilton spun.

  5. My approval dipped after the FIA didn’t publish Ferrari, but Todt does have a point about it.

    1. Agree actually, the way the law has been enforced FIA was in an impossible situation. How we really judge him comes from how he deals with the team orders rule and whether he actually adds clarity for next year.

    2. As for the FIA, now they can just forget about ruling at all as their rulings were so inconsistant in the past, that it should be hard to defend giving whatever penalty for other things that went unpunished in the past.

      Sure maybe Ferrari threathened to take it to the courts. But how on earth would they want to prove things like McLaren giving team orders in Turkey this year to prove TO going unpunished in the past?

      1. Exactly. When they decided they couldn’t punish them because the rule hadn’t been applied consistently in the past they set a dangerous precedent. I’m willing to bet most articles from the rulebook tome have been applied inconsistently at one time or another. So going forward then, the FIA can no longer enforce any rules. Do what you want teams!

        1. Fan cars, Turbo, Ground effect, Rocket launchers…..

          Next year will make for some great viewing!

  6. I still maintain Todt hasn’t done anything to merit a disapproval from me. Looking at the shortlist of FIA developments, they have done a lot of good work. The sticking point for everyone must be the Ferrari decision, but remember the decision not to further punish Ferrari was made by the WMSC, not Todt himself and he was at pains to point out he had no direct involvement in the decision. What more can you ask for from him? Do you really want to go back to the days of Mosely dictating to the WMSC?

    1. We can ask he doesn’t go against the WMSC’s findings, even if in doing so nothing changed. That kind of “I know best” was exactly a Mosley attribute.

  7. I think that there is still confusion about ‘team orders’, even after the WSMC ruling, and the fact that nobody is going to discuss for a long time (if at all) means that Todt and the FIA must get disapprovals for now and until they actually DO something about it. There was the perfect opportunity to draw a line and say ‘thus far and no farther’, and it wasn’t taken.
    The 13th team – why was it put forward in the first place? Does this mean that if another team came forward next year it would get in, or is that it? I’d like a bit more information about what happens next year if a team consistently breaks the 107% rule, will it be thrown out, leaving a grid of 11 teams, or replaced?
    The staff licences are rubbish, since both Pat and Flavio are back working in the sport already, and logically so are other people behind the various scandals involving McLaren, Ferrari and Renault over the past few years. Under this scheme they are all going to get licences and be able to carry on as before. Just as with the ‘team orders’, the FIA is pretending to have solved the problem without actually doing anything……..

    1. Strange, that they took until September to decide not to have another team. Why not stop it in June/July before these teams invested in development?
      I already heard speculation, that the idea is for ART to apply during next year with Group Lotus backing.

      1. And does that make it any better, or a lot worse, with a family relation available for appearance of nepotism, and cooperation with a group who just started an ugly political fight against a year old team that has been the most successful of the newcomers, because they want to compete against them now they have new management. Bad stuff, IMO.

  8. The Ferrari decision was a huge mistake. Even if he stepped out of the decision making group. The rule was there, Ferrari broke the rule and was punished by the stewards. Ferrari was even declared guilty by the WMSC! It is not because the rule is crap or because it is badly made that people won’t get punished. Once again, FIA was lenient with Ferrari stuff. I bet the next non Ferrari team to do it will get utterly punished…

  9. The F1 Teams are pretty smart. The Brit-centric media insists that Ferrari were not punished. That is absolutely incorrect. They were fined etc. That is a FACT – even in a blog, readers expect to hear basic facts. The opinion that the punishment was not enough is fair game though.

    Also, where is the cry from F1 teams both in the media (except for some initial comments from C. Horner) and in terms of official protest? Both DC and Mark Webber (as well as Cosworth powered Williams)- who I’m quite sure have a lot more insight than most fans, thought Massa was ham-handed, but that what occurred was not out of the norm in F1. As sad as that reality may be for fans. Ferrari probably had reams of data and “evidence” of other teams doing similar things etc. F1 teams were smart to let some of the public vent and not get dragged into it (not open themselves up)….

    While it’s obvious what happened, at no time did Ferrari ever tell Massa to pull over for the faster Alonso. That Massa may have felt he would’ve been sacked had he not taken the “hints” is another matter… getting a “conviction” was never a slam dunk and the sport didn’t want to open an even larger can of worms.

    But it’s an opinion poll and we all have our opinions…

    1. The Brit-centric media insists that Ferrari were not punished. That is absolutely incorrect. They were fined etc. That is a FACT – even in a blog, readers expect to hear basic facts.

      I did point out they got a fine:

      Ferrari were not punished beyond the token fine already imposed by the race stewards

      1. And it is also (only) about a third of what somebody will pay for a brand new Ferrari road car.

        What irks me is the fact that the WMSC found Ferrari guilty and then Jean Todt said: Before you say [they] are guilty you have to be able to prove that [they] are guilty.

        Jean, the WMSC did prove that Ferrari were guilty, so you can’t say that. If they did wrong, please punish them in direct proportion with the crime, not just a slap on the wrist.

      2. I am curious, what denotes this fine as a “token” fine? It seems like a fair fine for the stewards to impose as punishment.

        1. The fact that teams like Ferrari regularly spend millions to get the car a tiny bit faster for a few points extra – 100k is a few sets of tires, maybe, no impediment against doing it again at all. As Horner agreed, cheapest points in a long time in F1.

          1. The fact that every team practices team orders makes me think the fine was a bit over the top. Shame on anyone who thinks otherwise.

          2. yeah, but this year its been the order of ‘hold position’ which is almost fair enough, race for the first 3/4 then bring it home, no last minute catastrophies. This is the first time since the ruling we have seen ‘swap position’, and it shouldn’t be done. I think the fine was pathetic, they should have been fined more like 100million, that would stop them. 100k to ferrari is like 10p to me or you

        2. Montezemolo will just open the petty cash box and send his office boy round to FIA with the dosh in 10 Euro notes….that’s how significant a $100k slap on the wrist is to a Fiat Motor Premium Brand Company (aka Ferrari). A flea bite.

    2. They weren’t punished by the WMSC which is what most people reported. They were initially fined at the time by the stewards, and that’s the only punishment handed down to them.

      It IS a fact that the WMSC did not punish them.

    3. Ferrari probably had reams of data and “evidence” of other teams doing similar things etc. F1 teams were smart to let some of the public vent and not get dragged into it (not open themselves up)….

      You’re onto something there. The WMSC did say part of not giving any further punishment was that “other teams had done it and not been punished”. It was and is still a ridiculous reason, but it could very well be why the other teams made no fuss, even though two stood to gain from a further punishment. Deducting the points from Alonso (rather than Ferrari’s WCC points from Hockenheim) was probably never going to happen, so it wouldn’t have been worth opening a can of worms, as you say.

    4. Interesting that all Ferrari referred to in the open were 2 instances, where allegedly TO had been used, but it was far from being a similar situation and i seriously doubt, that Ferrari had evidence to prove this should have been punished as TO with direct effect on the competition.
      Why not use a clear case from Ferrari’s own past? Or have Alonso confirm some of possible TO at Renault?

      Thing is, if the FIA were a proper governing body, they should have called Ferrari’s bluff and had them try and prove those alleged teamorders. The punishment from the Stewards was maximum they could give, but it was a very cheap victory for Alonso.

  10. I had to vote disapprove this time (1st time ever) because although he is doing some good stuff on the big issues he seems to have handled them poorly.

    Immaterial of the outcome of Ferrari team orders meeting, Todt’s public comments should have matched that of the council and it clearly didn’t and I think the whole issue of the 13th team has been a fiasco. On the other hand it is good that he is changing the F1 judicial system even though that has not been widely reported, and the things on licences are good, but the F1 president should be all about leadership and integrity and on the two big issues both seem to be lacking.

  11. I will DISAPPROVED cause more should have been done on that Ferrari team-order. Other than that I am happy that he didn’t brought any 13th unknown team & he alone with Bernie increased the number of races in 2011.

  12. I think he’s done a great job operating behind the shadows to differentiate himself from the Herr Mosley’s reign, and he’s made a good start at making positive changes but more still needs to be done.
    And I feel that letting Ferrari get off without further punishment was a bit of a mistake (a big ‘bit’).

    But give him a bit of time and I think he will do well.

  13. Disapprove for the first time. Here’s why:

    Staff licences a good idea long overdue, but whilst you can’t really be against censures for drivers who break the law on the road, it’s a bit of a gimmick, not to mention that any driver breaking the law will already be punished: by the law. It’s irrelevant to their safety as a competitive driver.

    Now of course for the disapproves:

    – 13th team took far too long in the first place and it doesn’t look like any lessons will be learned for next year. Good that no-one unsuitable came in but you could argue legitimate prospects were forced to withdraw because of a lack of preparation time.
    – Of course, the WMSC decision. Not that Todt did or should have had any part to play in what the decision actually was, but the weak way he handled the aftermath – including that rubbish about “no proof” – showed an alarming lack of competent leadership. In fact, had he been smart he should have said the punishment was too weak but he respected the decision, to score some points and at least appear he was being credible.

  14. I think the way the 13th team issue was handled was pretty shoddy, they didn’t get serious entries from the likes of ART or Prodrive purely because they designed a process which made it seem they were never serious about finding a 13th team in the first place. I’m also unconvinced about drivers having their superlicences black marked for anything as trivial as what Lewis did but on the other hand I’m delighted to see Brazil back as the final round as it should be.

    The WMSC decision represented an outbreak of common sense in the FIA which has been lacking for so many years. It would have been easy for them to bring out a draconian punishment as so many were calling for, but wise heads previaled and they decided the rule itself was completely unworkable and could not survive in its current form. Although its true that Jean Todt was not directly involved in the decision I felt it reflected well on the culture change at the FIA since he took over and therefore I’ve moved from “no opinion” back to “approve”

    1. they decided the rule itself was completely unworkable and could not survive in its current form.

      And yet, they found Ferrari had broken the rule, so in this case it clearly wasn’t unworkable.

      Whenever people trot out the “you can’t police it” line I always think it’s a bit presumptuous given that they haven’t really tried.

      Except on this one occasion when they did try and they did find team orders had been used.

      At no point has the WMSC tried to pursue a use of team orders and found itself unable to. With the huge amount of data they have access to – radio transcripts, car telemetry etc… – I don’t think it is impossible to enforce at all.

      1. “And yet, they found Ferrari had broken the rule, so in this case it clearly wasn’t unworkable.”

        Its not so much that its unworkable so much as rules cannot be selectively enforced on the basis of public opinion. The actual breach of the regulation was identical in Turkey 2007 or Hockenheim 2008, in fact in that race Heikki was actually told “Lewis is faster than you” I’m fully aware of the differences in circumstances but the breach of the rule was the same.

        The WMSC clearly state the decision not to punish Ferrari was because of the inconsistency of its implication since 2003. Since other teams have used team orders and gone unpunished and used them under the assumption that they can breach the regulation it as long as they do it subtly. The rule had to either be reworded to reflect the nuances of what is acceptable or scrapped all together.

        Surely the FIA deciding not to enforce a badly worded rule that was a knee-jerk reaction to an unpopular event 8 years ago is a sign of progress.

        1. Its not so much that its unworkable so much as rules cannot be selectively enforced on the basis of public opinion.

          I’m not saying they should be. If McLaren did get on the radio and told Kovalainen to pull over they should have had a penalty.

          I doubt it would have made a difference if McLaren had done so given how easily Hamilton passed other drivers – Massa for example. Given the circumstances it’s not surprising the FIA didn’t bother to get involved. Still, if they had done and found wrongdoing that would have been fair enough.

          Surely the FIA deciding not to enforce a badly worded rule that was a knee-jerk reaction to an unpopular event 8 years ago is a sign of progress.

          Ask yourself why what happened at Austria and Hockenheim got exactly the same reaction. People don’t want rigged races.

          Progress would be acknowledging the damage F1 does to itself by allowing teams to interfere with races in this way, realising the stewards have the technology and the means to police a ban, and enforcing the rule accordingly.

          This isn’t progress, this is failing to learn from past mistakes.

          1. That was very well said.

            What I can’t understand is this > “inconsistency in [the] application”

            I mean, if your look for inconsistency in F1, you don’t exactly have to look far do you?

      2. It is unenforcable, the fia obviosly came to an agreement with ferrari that they would admit guilt (or not plead not guilty) in return for a token punishment. In a court of law, which is what ferrari were threatening, the fia’s evidence would not stand up, they cannot PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that ferrari used team orders even though we all KNOW they did, there is no evidence of the team actually stating ‘felipe move over’

        1. In a court of law, which is what ferrari were threatening


          I’m having trouble believing there’s any good publicity to be gained from going to a law court and arguing for your right to fix the result of a sporting event.

  15. FIA changed the way championship fight was going. Ferrari was given chance to fix their engine problems in the middle of the season. Clearly they took the whole advantage out of it.

    Why they dont let Reanult etc. level the power loss to others, while the give Ferrari this kind of advantage.

    So Todt as FIAs president has done a lousy job.
    + The Teamorder case. + RB wing case. They made legal wing to not legal coz Ferrari and Macca was comlaining about flexi wings. Really bad job done under Todt. Clearly he has a soft spot for FIArrari

    1. But it was the teams allowing Ferrari, but not Renault, not FIA.

    2. No, several teams headed by MacLaren complained about Ferrari’s and RB’s frontwings and both teams were inspected.

      And no, it’s not called FIArrari, it’s called maFIA, with Charlie Whiting as the “conseglieri” protecting young boy Hammilton (still very young as he keeps proving in the last GPs).
      HAve a look at this one:

      1. Literally the most hilarious thing that has occured since Todt became President is this fantasically misguided veiw that the FIA favours Hamilton and McLaren of all things. I mean, have you ever watched F1 before 2010? The accusations are so incredibly baseless and whiny it brings a smile.

        Anyway the flexi wing test was a bit of a croc, as flexing mostly occured at speeds higher that when 100kg of loading would occur, althought the bib test was better proven by the way everyones changed up, fairly good sign that skulduggery was going on.

    3. Weren’t Renault given an opportunity to work on their engines a couple of years ago?

      Ferrari were given permission to fix parts not increase power and the FIA are very strict with their checks so yes they had some help but it only helped reliability.

      Flexi parts (which Ferrari also apparently had) were always banned just their tests couldn’t always detect them or they didn’t flex enough to be illegal.

      Todt actually removed himself from anything to do with the WMSC when it came to the team orders so it wouldn’t be biased. I honestly don’t see how he’s meant to have looked after Ferrari.

      Charlie doesn’t favour anyone either. He doesn’t lay down the law of the land, it’s a full group of stewards during the race then the WMSC or FIA after. The decisions have been inconsistent in the past and quite lenient on everyone this year. Seb and Massa have both tried to drive into Hamilton (China and Bahrain) yet went away unpunished so that’s been against him.

      The video posted shows examples from ages ago when Todt wasn’t president so isn’t entirely relevant.

    4. Why don’t they let Renault etc… level the power loss to others,

      They did, two years ago, under the same engine freeze as operates now.

      it’s called maFIA, with Charlie Whiting as the “consigliere” protecting young boy Hamilton

      By mis-advising McLaren at Spa in ’08 leading to the team being stripped of their win? Funny way of going about it.

      1. Did Renault get to level the engine power in the middle of the season??

        What i remember is that it was after season. I might be wrong though.

        1. … i checked, and it was prior 09. But in my little world during and prior is 2 different things.

          “Ferrari has confirmed it has gained permission from the FIA to modify its engines ahead of the Spanish Grand Prix. The team hopes it will solve the reliability problems it has suffered with its power units.”

          1. I know they got permission to fix their engines for reliability purposes but that doesn’t mean they got it because they are Ferrari or that any other manufacturer wouldn’t have been allowed to do the same.

  16. Basically, there was no way Todt could escape the team orders affair unscathed. Sooner or later, a situation involving conflict of interest was going to arise. For that very reason he should have declined the nomination for being the FIA president. Otherwise, he’s done a fairly good job (better than Mosley for sure, but that’s a feat not too difficult to achieve).

  17. Approve,he’s a lot less controversial than Mosley.

  18. Approve.

    He was right about Ferrari. He stayed out of it which was professional. If he had stepped in he would have got so much stick for it. Ultimately, the right decision was made by the evidence and precedent set before. Then because it was clearly still not right for the sport the team orders rule is being lucked at. Right strategy.

    Staff licences simple but sensible and surprising they weren’t thought of before so good job. Not a radical decision on the face of it but very handy.

    Road safety – any improvements then good that’s another tick.

    The 13th team is the only thing I’m not that happy about as I think it took far too long for a decision to be made so it seemed like they just forgot.

    1. Step, you are so naive do you really think in the cosy surrounds of Todts office in Ferrari International Assistance (FIA) offices in down town paris there weren’t discussions about this case…get real, wake up and smell the coffee. The totally wrong decision was made for entirely corrupt reasons.
      Staff licences….mm why is that sensible, sounds like a restraint of trade to me and let me guess, you have to pay each year to renew your licence and who gets the money… no tick from me.
      Road safety…. they have been doing that ffor years so to continue an established campaign or revamp one is hardly dynamic…no tick.
      Sorry you may have guest it, I would rather we had an idependent president who wasnt on the Ferrari payroll for about a decade or am I just cynical ??

      1. Dave, if you can prove the behind-the-scenes discussions, be my guest. Otherwise, Todt is innocent until proven guilty.

        Staff licenses, almost everyone thinks that this is sorely needed. Why? In one word – Flavio.

        Road safety is a continuous process – so unless they did nothing at all here, I don’t see how you can’t tick that area.

        So based on a logical summary of events, I approve.

        I sense you were a huge fan of Ari Vatanen, Dave, but Todt won, so we live with what we’ve got.

        1. Agree with everything Journeyer says. In fact, I really couldn’t have put it better myself!

          I admit I wanetd Ari to be president but I don’t see how Todt can be accused of bias when he’s had nothing to do with Ferrari since he came in office. It’s a new job now. He’ll look at Ferrari fondly but it doesn’t mean he’s biased.

          I will admit I can be very naive though so you’re right there! :)

        2. Journeyer/Steph,
          I, like millions of others fans saw and heard Ferrari cheat, agreed ? Jean Todt was on the payroll of Ferrari for goodness knows how long..agreed, Jean Todt was filmed at the austrian GP committing exactly the same offence…agreed ? (perhaps his philosophy is so ingrained they cant work any other way!)The FIA under his presidency in the same building as he works and by people he knows personally took no further action against Ferrari…agreed ?, so tell me honestly what you believe went on before that hearing, don’t apply “beyond reasonable doubt” what do you really really think?…me I think, but don’t know, that it was a stitch up to protect Todt’s friends and former colleagues and paymasters from being punished,
          PS not a Vatanen fan, just don’t like cheats being given such influential jobs in the sport I love
          Staff licences wouldn’t have stopped Flavio so I think your argument is redundant there,
          Anyway…its a great season ! and being naive isn’t such a bad thing !!

    2. Whatever you believe about the WMSC verdict, you can’t reasonably judge Todt on it. It was the other things he did. He stepped away – good, especially considering the verdict. But then he contradicted it as if he was unhappy there was any punishment at all – not good.

  19. Between taking so long on deciding on the 13th team, then choosing no one and letting his old Ferrari connections cloud his opinion on the matter (doesn’t consider it enough proof? Hrm, not surprising considering he was the one in charge during Austria ’02), he’s slipped to disapprove for me.

  20. “Well, one polemic decision about Ferrari, and all of a sudden, big disapproval.
    Short memory everyone, or is this Ferrari decision enough to topple 8 months of good work?”

    In short, yes. :)

  21. we cant say what we would like to say for fear of a libel suit, but my view hasnt changed, for his views on team orders watch the video of his instructions to Rubens in Austria, he was a disgrace then and to put him in charge of the FIA continues that corrupt practice, as for evidence Jean, you are insulting our intelligence, we all saw and heard it, maybe Max wasnt so bad after all !!!,

    1. “Every team in the pit lane gives team orders.” – David Coulthard

      Punish all of the teams?

      1. I liked the way Coulthard gave lots of examples to back that claim up.

        Oh wait, no he didn’t.

        1. I don’t believe he was asked to.

          But he did follow that statment with “Anyone who says they don’t is lying.”

          But what would he know.

          1. Maybe he meant team orders in a very broad sense – for example, giving the only example of a new part to a certain driver.

            But I doubt he could give us an example of every other team this year getting on the radio and telling one of their drivers to pull over and let the other one pass.

            Can anyone think of any?

        2. Quite a bitter remark you made a comment down about RBR @ Silverstone. Some would deem that a Freudian slip.

          On top of that what benefit does he get out of lying? He’s knows how F1 works inside and used to race for Ferrari’s nr.1 opponent. Seriously, what did DC win by making that comment? Did he imply that he was only talking about this year? Not really. He made a general statement about the sport.

  22. Dissaprove for the first time.
    The rationale is that while in the early stages it was acceptable to ‘be the man in the shadows’ steering but not interfering with day to day issues, at some point a leader has to step up and be counted.
    The Ferrari debacle was just such as moment, where a firm hand of authority was required to either strongly uphold the rules (however interpreted and poorly upheld in the past), and punish appropriately or modify them without delay to ensure there’s no ambiguity going forward.
    The darkest days of 2009 had too many race outcomes decided after the event, by poorly qualified individuals acting on highly variable interpretation of the rules, which at times appeared to be modified to suit the occasion.
    That being the case then the route to clean understandable sport is to have a clearly articulated, stable and firmly upheld rule book.
    The current status is far from that
    1. The Team Orders position is not in any way clear – Can teams openly abuse the rule without penalty, or is the fee for doing so just 100k?
    2. Wings are loaded (and I defer to higher technical authority than me here) to 500kg+ downforce and yet the measure taken to clean up the wing flex issue is to place a much less than adequate load on the wing.

    I would suggest the FIA under appropriately strong leadership either step up and fix the loophole, or hold firm with the current rule, such that in the case of flexy wings clever designs may be employed, interpreting the rules exactly as stated and originally applied – and in the process gaining a recognised and allowable advantage. To do neither once again brings the authority of the FIA into question.

  23. Jean Tod? FIA?

    This is the first year he have not had to hear each month declarations/fights from the President of the FIA about how to manage something related to anyone of the F1 stakeholders.


  24. The stance Todt took over Hockenheim was soft and convenient, and the comments he made contradictory and ill thought out. I was impressed by his premiership up to this point, but it was only a matter of time before he would have to deal with a Ferrari scandal, and he handled it poorly.

    The failure to fill next year’s grid is also disgraceful and illuminates deep failings in the FIA’s selection process – it appears the FIA have learned nothing from the previous year.

  25. I voted disapprove this time for the first time. While I don’t like Ferrari it is not their letting off that I disagree with, it’s the fact that it completely undermines the rules when they are not upheld.

    I also disapprove of the FIA handling of the 13th team. A decision was originally meant to be made in June, but they delayed it until September and then wondered why there weren’t any viable entries. If they weren’t that bothered about getting a 13th team, why open it up for tender at all?

    The racing licence rule is a farce. Does this mean that a driver could be banned from racing for driving too fast on public roads? Irony aside, this would be a terrible shame. Can you imagine what would have happened if Hamilton had been banned from F1 for the incident in Australia? The FIA should stop the silly PR campaign and put more effort into actually doing something about it if they care that much.

    While I appreciate the job he’s done over the past few months I disagree with most of the FIA’s recent decisions. To those saying people have short memories, perhaps you should do a moving average of the results if you wanted to eliminate this factor.

  26. Disapprove for the first time, and I am a Ferrari fan. Privately, I am indeed very happy that my team wasn’t punished more, but for Formula 1, it was bad.

    While Todt’s decision to not actively involve himself in that matter was a correct one, it does not absolve him of any blame. He is the president of the FIA, FIA’s fault is his fault, and vice-versa.

    I hope the Team orders rule is tightened, only then will I vote approve for Todt. They could perhaps ban the passage of information from pit-to-car about the team-mate and his car. While teams will definitely find a way around this, atleast it won’t be done as shamelessly as at Hockenheim.

  27. You can’t base this on the ‘team orders gate’ decision as a whole, mostly becuase Jean Todt didn’t have a say in it. Todt hasn’t really made his mark on F1 yet, partly due to Driver stewards taking over foundation decisions in races, judge him over three years is the best option.

    1. But that was by his choice. He chose to step aside from the decision, and then made contradictory comments after the panel had made it.

  28. Disapprove. Really, no 13th team?

  29. He made right decision to not take part in the hearing which had Ferrari in it. Otherwise the decisions which WMSC had were not that bad so I voted approve.

  30. no opinion from me.

    i haven’t seen anything that fixes the bizarre rules and inconsistent, belated application of rules and penalties.

  31. Definitly Aprove !

    People here are voting disaprove because of the hearing. But its not Todts desicion, it was a big group, you can’t pin this on him.

    Ferrari were innocent anyway !

    1. Innocent if you don’t have eyes…

  32. I voted disapprove mainly for the Ferrari team orders case. There should have been some kind of penalty on drivers or team points.

    Also, the fact that the FIA did not rejected any suggestion for the amendment of the team orders rule would be very negative for the sport.

    Team orders mean that only half of the drivers fight for the best possible outcome.

    1. The nature of which F1 is set up, a team is inclined to support a #1 driver. To be fair to both drivers, there should be 2 pit boxes, 2 separate pit crews as opposed to sharing crews on stops… in short, a clear separation between the 2 cars and drivers would go a long way to doing away with team orders. But then that is not Formula 1.

  33. I still think he’s quite an improvement compared to Mosley but on the whole, quite a few FIA decisions concerning F1 this year have lacked the necessary determination.

    The decision about the 13th F1 team franchise for 2011? Too late for any sane businessman to get involved.

    The decision about the tyre manufacturer? Rather late given F1’s development lead times – ergo no 18-inch rims next year.

    The decision about Ferrari’s just-too-obvious team “strategies”? Weak (You can say all you like, but the bottom line is: Ferrari did exactly what the rule was introduced to prevent, and yet they still got away with it).

    Reviewing Ecclestone’s outrageous 100-year CRH deal? Nothing in sight.

    That’s why this time, for the first time, I’ve chosen “Disapprove”.

  34. … knew where you were with Max, todt operates in the shadows, and his former alliance with ferrari can never be discounted, it was under his tenure at ferrari, that the ‘team orders’ rule was written into the regs, I feel that todt cannot be trusted to be impartial, and should step down, with immediate effect, this would go some way to remove a large amount of distrust, that many fans have in the FIA..

  35. Why should Todt be clouted for not announcing a 13th has failed to materialize before the previously announced deadline?

    It’s not his direct fault that there are no qualified new teams, and they should have allowed potential candidates the full alloted time to attempt to pull their entries together.

    And in an open discourse, why should Todt not be allowed to disagree with his own WMC decisions?

    @achilles: Me thinks you have it bass-ackwards; it was Max who was the ultimate bsack room dealer. I too was opposed to Todt’s election based on his former Ferrari ties, but so far I think he’s working hard to be impartial.

    All in all you can’t fault his leadership to this point.

  36. Licenses for all participants is so elemental I am surprised it has not been in place forever. I believe all sanctioning bodies in the US require licenses for all participants. Good for the FIA, even though I wonder what has taken so long.

    As for team orders, I have always believed F1 is a team sport. I know of no one who objects to team orders in the last race, or the last 2 races, or at some other time of the individual’s choosing. I just want transparency. I am good with a review of the rule if it results in something better in the future–it is remarkably easy for one driver to allow another driver past, I don’t think it is always so provable, lets insist on transparency. For me, I might choose to pull for Ferrari over Red Bull, even if Ferrari allows team orders from race 1 and Red Bull doesn’t until the 2nd driver is mathematically eliminated.

    If Todt finally gets licenses and clearer team orders, good for all of us.

Comments are closed.