Jean Todt’s Approval Rating XII

Debates and polls

Posted on

| Written by

Jean Todt, champions, FIA Gala, 2010

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

New rules for 2011

Several rules changes have been made for next year including the following (see the links for further details):

Smaller, more fuel-efficient engines in 2013

From 2013 F1 cars will use 1.6-litre engines with four cylinders. Todt is understood to have played a leading role in getting teams to agree on smaller engine capacities.

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 (13%)
  • Disapprove (34%)
  • Approve (53%)

Total Voters: 229

 Loading ...

You need to sign in to vote. You can register an account here or read more information here.

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

Jean Todt’s Approval Ratings

DateApproveDisapproveNo opinion
November 201071%18%11%
October 201060%24%16%
September 201044%43%12%
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-November 2010

Debates and polls

Browse all debates and polls

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.

64 comments on “Jean Todt’s Approval Rating XII”

  1. I suppose this month Todt’s popularity will be dictated on whether people are in favour of the 2013 rule changes or not. In theory I think they’re great, so I voted approve.

    However, they are pretty drastic, and I think it’ll be interesting to see how the transition goes in a few years time. The introduction of KERS has been a bit of a mess thus far, let’s hope the move to turbos and ‘ground effect’ is a bit more successful

    1. Technical changes I’m ok with. Changes that make the racing more ‘false’ I’m not. This is supposed to be the elite level of the sport – no place for gimmicks.

      However, as per my post below the specifics of the rules shouldn’t determine our opinion of how Todt is performing his job, because as far as I’m concerned that’s not what his job is about.

      1. I like the new regulations, but i think Todt alone would have not made it happen, but i do appreciate his drive to make the sport more road car relevant, because as it is, it’s not even close, these cars share nothing with even the highest performance road-cars.

        as for the scrapping of the team orders, I’m all for it, what I’m against, feverishly, is a stupid overtake maneuver that insults everyone.., and then lying and denial…a la Teflonso…

        a legitimate place swap or team tactic with a leader and a wingman is not a wrong thing, but insulting people’s intelligence for years is… i wonder if Alonso will ever admit it was an actual intended swap, or will he go on saying that Massa was rubbish anyway….

    2. I approved too, and apart from the 107% rule, the rest are positive developments in my opinion.

    3. I am not suprised he let Ferrari get away with Germany this year, remember he was on Ferrari`s pay roll for a long time.

      1. He recused himself from the hearing(s) and he isn’t the dictator that Mosley was. He left it to others to make the decision about Ferrari and frankly, that really doesn’t have much to do with November anyways. If the teams really didn’t want team orders, they surely could have been a bit louder in their opposition as there was barely a squeek from any of the teams with only Red Bull really saying much of anything and then only because they were pestered constantly about it for a reaction by the news media.

  2. I dont particularly like the 2013 rules that have been proposed and I dont like the new engine formula. I personally think they should leave the rules alone. However, I am glad the ban on team orders has been lifted. In conclusion I am kind of on the fence at the moment, leaning towards disaprove due to the continuos meddling with the rules.

    1. How much influence does the FIA President have on the rules proposed? Is anyone giving credit or otherwise to Todt for rules changes in Rallying (which he also oversees with the same authority)?

      Maybe we are all influenced by the way Mosely ran things, but the President shouldn’t be heavily involved in that stuff surely? The President’s job should be to facilitate rule changes not to decide which ones to make.

      1. Is anyone giving credit or otherwise to Todt for rules changes in Rallying

        The intention is that they shouldn’t, as the questions asks what do you think of him ‘as an F1 fan’. Incidentally, from what I’ve seen of it I think he’s made some good calls on the rallying rules.

        1. That’s not actually what I meant.

          I meant do Rallying people thing about the role of the FIA president in the same way as F1 people seem to?

          I don’t think Mosely interfered to the same degree in Rallying as he did in F1. So, I don’t think Rallying people have an expectation that the President should be held responsible for the specific rules that are implemented. Do you understand what I’m saying?

  3. Keith, good change to the colours. They make more sense now. Personally, I’d have neutral between Approve and Disapprove but as you’ve called it ‘no opinion’ I can see why you’ve gone for the layout you have.

    1. They make more sense now. Personally, I’d have neutral between Approve and Disapprove…

      Someone else was talking about this a while back (perhaps you?), but I think they were wrong. This is the classic “yes, no, maybe” setup. What’s wrong with it?

      1. Oh, and I voted ‘approve’. Why? Because I like a man who comes into his job and starts organising things to run in a smooth fashion. Todt has done that (for example) by firstly separating the powers of the President, therefore creating a new level of transparency immediately. There can be bickering about what rule changes are good or not, but surely no-one can doubt the professionalism of Jean Todt. He is showing the FIA how a president should behave.

        1. This is what I was talking about above. So thanks to Todt we have a clear idea of what the President’s role is (agree this is excellent work btw). Does that role have anything to do with the direction the rules take? Does it allow him to have much to do with the specifics of the rules? This is what I want to know.

      2. Well, there’s noting actually wrong with it. It’s just if disagree was on top, with a flat edge down one axis (like approve is on the bottom) I could quantify much more easily the disapprove trend. It would be easier to compare the approve and disapprove sides at a glance too, because their shapes would be more symmetric.

  4. I don’t like the lift of the ban on team orders.
    I don’t like the reintroduction of the 107% rule.
    I don’t like the introduction of adjustable rear wings.
    I’m not too fond of the 2013 changes.

    I think it’s the first time I disapproved…

    1. Exact same reaction here. Not sure if it’s Todt’s responsibility but he gets to carry the buck.
      Team orders: I thought the old system worked fine, team orders may have occasionally slipped through but were politically incorrect and therefore limited.
      The 107% rule has been unnecessary. I look forward to the exception being implemented for a leading team’s drive who has mechanical problems early in Q1. Not.
      Adjustable rear wings. What could be more gimmicky? We’ll be guessing who’s within one second all race long. And adjustable front wings didn’t help much, did they?

      1. I agree with the both of you on disliking the legality of Team Orders and the 107% rule.
        Just think of the shouts when next year the Stewards have to allow Alonso or Vettel to race after some problems in Q1!
        With team orders, I see this as a worrying trend for rules/ruling to become more political, as the use of “bringing the sport into disrepute” is something of a fix all without any limits or bounds.

        The adjustable rear wing is far from being my favourite, I hope it will get dropped after early season testing.
        The new engine and chassis rules look promising, this is an area where Todt does good to let the technical people do their work to get a good package together.

    2. Im actually pleased with the 107% rule, as it will the backmarkers into taking the sport more seriously. Teams such as HRT do not belong in the sport, and if they cant up their game enough to start races, then its good riddance.

      Team orders always existed, and now I’m glad that all the teams can be open about it instead of disguising it and fooling viewers.

      I’m not a fan of how the adjustable rear wings are going to be used. Its sounds too video gamish to me.

      2013 doesn’t sound too exciting either, and makes me question whether there will ever be any stability in car design in F1.

      So.. in the end I voted on no opinion.

    3. Lifting the ban on team orders: somewhat good. The ban was never respected by the teams. And let’s face it, team orders will remain unpopular, so the teams will try to limit them anyway, purely for PR reasons.

      Reintroduction of 107% rule: bad. Without in-season testing the teams initially falling outside of 107% will not have the means to improve. And I don’t think that alienating the sport even more is a good move.

      Stewards have new powers to punish drivers: good. I think that the new penalty options allow for more flexibility.

      Cars will have adjustable rear wings: bad. I don’t like the principle of giving one driver a temporary advantage over another. I’d like it to be about skill. Plus, I don’t like the resources to be wasted on yet another aerodynamic gadget with no use in real life. In my opinion the cars should be as simple aerodynamically as possible. Instead FIA should unlock the engine development with only one regulation: the amount of fuel (or as some people suggested – amount of energy) allowed for the race. That would bring some innovative ideas, transferrable to road cars. And if you worry about the costs, just introduce the budget cap already.

      Overall: this time I disapprove. I think these changes for the most part fail to address the core issues with F1.

      1. I’m with you Ben.

        Team orders: I just don’t like the lying aspect and not having to race your teammate.

        107% rule: While I understand the original premise of the rule, I think this also causes problems with a lack of testing. Therefore if you don’t get to race, you should be allowed either to do as much testing until the next race and/or your drivers should get extra practice time on that circuit. My proposal could have problems as top tier teams could sandbag to use the test time but I highly doubt that they would want to.

        Stewards: whatever

        Rear wings: Stupid. Let’s also develop red/green/blue shells for teams.

        Engine rules: I approve but I think it’s silly to keep it at 4 cyl forever. I’d like more tech to carry over to road cars though.

        Here’s what I would do if I was in charge. Define the basic rules for cars (dimension limits, weight limits, fuel cap, things disallowed, etc). Then establish a budget cap. You are free to spend your resources on whatever you will – aero, engine, materials, manufacturing. Race.

  5. I’ve gone from approve to no opinion, not a big fan of next year’s rule changes but I like the sound of the 2013 designs.

  6. I approved only will it be paid if the new engine rule from 2013 help some engine manufacturer to come in F1.

  7. Looking forward to 2013, so it’s a ‘yes’ from me. The new regs will attract more manufacturers, which ks good for the sport.

  8. Well its a mixed bag from me… so its no opinion I guess. I agree with the ban on team orders simply because it will end the hypocrisy that the teams have been getting away with for years. I don’t agree with the 107% rule being reintroduced simply because the sport neds a steady flow of new teams, who is even going to bother turning up if they won’t have a chance of racing on Sunday? I really approve of the improvement in the standard of stewarding, because we all win when stewards make sensible decisions. I don’t approve of adjustable rear wings…they just seems like a gimmick which will take some of the skill out of overtaking.

    Finally, I don’t approve of the new engine rules. I’ve been up in the air about this one for a while, and I’ve now decided that part of the appeal of F1 has always been the best drivers in the world driving the most technologically advanced cars with the biggest and most powerful engines. Part of the appeal of the original turbo era was watching drivers wrestle cars that produced 1500bhp, and this isn’t what is coming back in 2013. I don’t want to watch F1 cars with 1.6 litre turbo charged engines “because they are similar to the ones in road cars” or because “I can see the similarites between my car and F1 cars” or because the car companies get to go on some silly marketing exercise. I want F1 cars to have mad, huge engines that produce atomic power. F1 has to be the pinnacle of motorsport, and having cars with big scary powerful engines is part of what makes the sport what it is.

  9. Actually I dont think one can judge whether the 2013 rules will improve the sport or not. I feel a lot of the overtaking is decided by the tracks built these days. The 107% rule should ideally serve to bring cars up to speed and not see them lapped 3-4 times a race. Most of the times the FIA have sought to decrease downforce it seems teams have found better ways to increase it to higher levels. Maybe they will find a a way to subvert ARW’s also.

  10. With the 1.6l engines, isnt anyone concerned its going to be like how we miss the v10’s sound now… were going to end up missing the sounds of the v8’s, and be stuck with an even worse sound? Think that makes sense… I understand the need to be relevant, and how technology advances but… this is f1, not one a make series or formula 3…

    1. Don’t be ridiculous – F1 won’t be like Formula 3: Formula 3 is actually racing, not a reality TV show.

      1. Kieran meant, “a one make series” or “spec series” (like Indycar, GP2, etc), not a series of a reality show.

  11. I think the rule changes for 2013 and for next year are fantastic so I have to vote approve.

  12. For me the worst point is that he was at the origin of the team orders ban and now he gives a big help to ferrari by removing that ban

    Years later he is just up the hill and he immediately sustain them for their worst side in the sport
    He managed also them not to be punished after Hockenheim farce…

    In just two acts he became what he has always been… remember his whole motorsport implication… You always find him in dark sides of the force

    Nothing has changed here really


    1. Right, because nobody used team orders while the ban was in place?

      First you accused Ferrari of flouting the team orders ban while others adhered – and then you say it’s an advantage to Ferrari to let the other teams use it as well?

      What nonsense.

      1. Nobody tells you the other teams will make use of the team order ban lift…

        Just look at Red Bull and Mc Laren : they hate using them and as for McLaren you can say they have lost many championships because of not willing use of team orders…

        You cannot say the same for ferrari since they won so many times with team orders and if not with team orders just by contracting poor pilots with Schu, to be sure they will have no team orders to give since the moment the second pilot is less able and less agressive

        Keep that in your mind


        1. The only time when Ferrari won thanks to any kind of team order was Brazil 2007. Even then, Raikkonen simply leapfrogged him in the pitstops, plus Massa came out before the race to insist that he would help Raikkonen, meaning that it wasn’t really a team order at all. In all other cases team orders did not have any effect on the championship standing.

        2. Plus Barrichello isn’t a poor driver, and your point about “they will have no team orders to give since the moment the second pilot is less able and less agressive” is nonsense, since it’s rare for a team to sign 2 drivers with an equally strong reputation.

  13. D I S A P P R O V E

    The new rules are either unnecessary or completely missing the point. Either you agree that you have this sport whithout all too much road car relevance, or you make it the real technical pinnacle of motorsport again. And that means much more freedom then the 2013 rules.

    Now we end up with this half measured cost increasing set of rules, which seem just be created luring volkswagen and the japanse again into the sport. I mean: the only road relevance is that F1 copies road cars instead of the other way around.

    We’ve read all kinds of possible solutions here on this site, like unlimited Kers, or other recovery systems, or freedom of engine type but a limited amounty of (any) fuel , etc.
    Jean should be reading these comments.

    Instead of only cleaning up after the season, Jean should’ve stepped in earlier, explaining the rules and the possibilities for applying them.

    I don’t remember the exact article(s), but after Monaco I read (studied) them and found that there were already provisions within the rules to distract any amount of seconds, making it effectively possible to switch places between Schumacher and Alonso.

    So there really is nothing new in the rulebook and the art of stewarding is not in the rules, it’s in the policing of the rules. And in making that clear to the stewards, Jean failed.

    adjustable wings
    This one I have to see first. It seems artificial at first glance, however since the effect of dirty air is so big, I think it can be fair to allow the passing driver to negate this effect. So here I’m neutral.

    Overall that leads to disapprove and for me it has been all year. At first he had one seemingly positive: being more in the background then Max Mosley, but now I’m not sure about that anymore. I think he should make more of a stand about the major things in F1.

    Beat that drum Jean, make yourself heard and feared!

  14. For the first time I disaprove, because of the rule, which lifts the ban of team orders.

  15. I cannot vote Keith. All the buttons appear disabled to me. Browser: MIE8.

    1. Are you logged in?

      1. No, I wasn’t. Sorry for any trouble!

  16. i think he is doing way much better than mosley. i guess that’s an approve. but his moves are not exciting.
    what about this idea. Have a very powerfull car for qualy, and a much less powerfull for the race, with an engine that lasts for several gp’s. With a package focused on racing and overtaking.
    I am talking 1400bhp for qualy. Let’s not forget, this is the essence of the sport. The fastest man, in the fastest machine.

    1. >> Better than Mosley

      … But that’s how they all start-out.

      Mosley was supposed to be better than Ballestre, that was his campaign, but inevitably they all end-up going equally mad.

      They spend the first year or two deliberately and conspicuously differentiating themselves from the guy that just went before; all the while consolidating their power, accumulating favours, gathering dirt on rivals, and slowly putting your own people in the key roles and committees.

      It’s only a few years down the line that we can make any sort of realistic judgement on Todt. Only then will we see how he managed to handle the corrupting effect of absolute power.

    2. But Mosley started off in a promising way as well, with picking up on safety as well.

      Only in the second term did it start to go completely dictatorship and the less said about his 3rd term, the better.

  17. i think he did a good job

  18. Hard to say until I hear one of those 1.6 litre engines fire up!

  19. Even if I disagree with some of the rulings that have been put in place, I can’t think of any reason why I should not approve of the way he is running everything. Which is what the question is really asking. So my vote is ‘approve’.

  20. I voted disapprove, because I hate Todt’s attitude about team orders…

  21. All kinds of stupid regulations to increase overtaking which in the end will do nothing, because overtaking is almost impossible because of current track regulations.

    Plus this is F1 not a damn computer game, where you can push a button and go faster. So I’m against these things.

    Team orders are good. Like an old man said, “The team comes first”.

    As for the 1.6 liter, 4 cylinder engines in 2013… I’m not even going to bother. Come 2015 they’ll probably use 600cc 2 cylinder engines, and they will probably eliminate all possible difference between engines and just have everyone use the same engine. It’s turning into an open wheel stock car championship, slowly.

    There’s also the ban on testing, which is destroying the smaller teams. Lotus for example might have done much better this season if they could’ve tested new stuff.

    Enough ranting and raving… but if I could, I’d put Damon Hill, Mika Häkkinen and Alain Prost prost in charge of everything.

    1. Oh and I forgot about the 107% rule which is very stupid, especially if correlated with the “NO TESTING” rule. Hell, if you don’t let the teams improve their cars how can you expect them to perform better.

      I’m so happy I got into GT1 this year, the racing there is incredible and it’s actually worth watching…

      I hear people saying that 2010’s F1 season was epic because there were 4 people fighting for the title. I’m sorry but that’s only epic if the drivers are actually fighting on the track, not when Vettel or whoever gets a 3 second lead on lap 1 of the race and the others then spread out so much that they have no chance of overtaking anything. Overtaking seems to involve the pit lane… as in if you want to get in front of X, you have to pit earlier and etc.

      Thank god for Kobayashi, that man is actually interesting to watch and I hope he doesn’t change his style for anything. He’s the only reason I watched F1 this year – and I’ve been a lifelong fan, but the past few years have been a shame to the sport. Him and Lotus, actually.

      And Formula 1 is not about being more “roadcar-like”, it’s about extreme performance and extreme technology, so the argument for the 1.6L engines just blocks my mind.

      1. I agree with almost everything you say, Faryus. I made my comments earlier (in a post which is ‘awaiting moderation’ because I chose not to spell out the phrase “improve the show”, and left it as sh with two asterisks!), but I’m surprised you don’t seem to have anything to say about the moveable rear wing if you’re closer than a second to the car in front. I think this is the ultimate degredation of a technologically driven sport into a video game.

        1. I’m surprised you don’t seem to have anything to say about the moveable rear wing

          Yeah, I kind of put all of these “concepts” under the “push a button and go faster” concept.

    2. I tend to agree with you on testing. However, it isn’t a simple issue.

      The teams agreed to the testing ban to limit costs. So, they are all equally affected in terms of development and costs.

      If Lotus, for example, could have benefitted from testing, then who’s to say that Red Bull, Ferrari, McLaren, etc. would not have also benefitted? It’s quite possible the big teams would have benefitted even more than the small teams, simply because they have more money to spend. As it is, in a way, the testing ban acts to level the development curve.

      Personally, I would like to see at least some amount of testing return. But, it has plusses and minuses. Young driver testing – plus. Arms race for development – minus. It’s a can of worms, so I’m not sure the teams/FIA will do it.

      1. I agree that this testing thing is… complicated.

        On the one hand, small teams would benefit from it. On the other, the big teams will be able to get an even bigger advantage because they have more money.

      2. Maybe testing could be reintroduced, but more miles given to teams that finish lower in the constructors?

  22. What will happen if in season testing is reintroduced.
    Ferrari, Mclaren, Red Bull, Williams will have a dedicatd test team and their performance will improve.The smaller new teams cannot afford that so even if they do test and improve the big teams will equally improve.
    Result.status quo.

  23. Gimmick rules, team orders, knee-jerk 107% rule, what more is there to disapprove of?

  24. I was opposed to Todt in the beginning, largely because he was backed by Mosley. But, now that Todt has been in office for a while, I approve of him. He appears to be his own man (and not in Bernie’s back pocket). The biggest change, in my opinion, is the way the FIA is handling things. There doesn’t appear to be any of the personal crap that Mosley always seemed to drag into things. Todt, so far, appears to be more professional and also stepping out of the limelight, which Mosley was forever seeking.

    As for specifics about F1 rules, I tend to not really blame or credit Todt for the changes. He doesn’t seem to be dictating policy in the same manner that Mosley usually appeared to do. I have mixed feelings on the new rules, but I believe they were derived from a mix of inputs, not just forced on F1 by Todt.

    Overall, I approve of Jean Todt. He has brought a professionalism to the FIA that was lacking, in my opinion, during Mosley’s reign.

  25. Megawatt Herring (@)
    29th December 2010, 11:00

    To be fair there have been very few times this season when a car has finished outside 107%, and it will be the fastest time from Q1 not pole. The new teams should be able to improve their cars this season so I don’t think that the 107% rule will make any difference.

  26. I would just like to repeat that the Stewards did not receive new powers to punish drivers. It’s the same rules as before. Only they are now literally repeated from “the code” into the F1 regulations rather than being referred to.

  27. Well, I think Todt did a reasonable job so far in clearing up the role of the FIA president, but then he felt the need also to somewhat spoil it by talking about the ruling on team orders (where he supposedly wasn’t involved) before we knew the full extent of it, and gave an explanation that fitted with the Ferrari defense, but then wasn’t part of the actual verdict, but just reinforced peoples opinion that the FIA chickened out of punishing the team. Not very good.

    I don’t like the 107% rule, and the rear wing thing seems like a gimmick, and KERS is still only a push to pass/defend button. Then again, these things are what the FOTA indicated they wanted, so I guess it is actually good process that under Todt the FIA tends to adopt what the teams feel is needed. He could have maybe been a bit tougher on them here though.

    The 2013 rules look like they are at least well thought out, and are geared to what teams and the car industry say it needs to be interested. We still will have to see what the aero rules are, but I guess here too, the FIA is doing its job, but just not for fans who like big loud engines.

    Based on the last two paragraphs I would approve, but the first one would lead me to disaprove. I guess I am just not yet convinced about Todt. The way he usually is in the background is good, but then again sometimes he feels the need to speak out, and then his tone tends to be disruptive – like with the team orders, and also the way he introduced the rules for punishing drivers for road behaviour (an otherwise seemingly sensible rule). Based on that I decided to go for disaprove.

  28. What I would like to see in the near future is all the cars gathered together near the FIA building in Paris for a group photo, then have each one placed in a green screen room and take pictures from all angles.

    This would allow the teams to use these images for their websites and promotion schemes and make it easier for the viewer to compare cars, if shots are taken from the same angles.

    1. If they ever use this idea I would like to be thanked for it.

      1. Also I will never rate positive until he stops changing the rules to suit Ferrari i.e. remove ban on team orders, reintroduce 107% rule to get rid of excessively slow drivers.

Comments are closed.