Jean Todt’s Approval Rating 2011: Part 3

Debates and polls

Posted on

| Written by

Jean Todt, Marco Tronchetti Provera, Istanbul, 2011
Jean Todt, Istanbul, 2011

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

The last approval rating saw the lowest score yet.

F1 Fanatic looks 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

Turkish Grand Prix dropped

The Turkish Grand Prix does not feature on the 2012 F1 calendar. Todt had said in June the original 21-race calendar would be cut to 20 rounds.

2014 F1 engine rules

The FIA confirmed a change to the future F1 engine rules. Instead of introducing four-cylinder engines in 2013, V6s will be used and will not arrive until 2014.

Gilles Simon joins PURE

Gilles Simon, who worked closely with F1’s engine manufacturers on framing the new rules, has left the FIA to join Craig Pollock’s new engine manufacturer PURE. This drew some complaints from teams who are unhappy about Simon, who was privy to many technical details about their engines, going to work for a future rival.

Exhaust-blown diffusers

New restrictions on exhaust-blown diffusers that were introduced for the British Grand Prix weekend were dropped after one race.

Young drivers’ practice

Todt has said he is pleased teams are considering creating more testing opportunities for young drivers.

However reports elsewhere claiming Todt voiced a desire to see split Friday practice into three one-hour sessions in 2012, with one given over to young drivers, are not accurate.

Formula E

The FIA plans to launch a new championship in 2013 called Formula E which is “designed??to??be??the??flagship??of??the??FIA?s??sustainable??strategy”. The series will feature fully electric single-seater cars with “performance comparable??to??that of??Formula??Three”.

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 (20%)
  • Disapprove (51%)
  • Aprove (29%)

Total Voters: 187

Loading ... Loading ...

An F1 Fanatic account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here.

Jean Todt?s Approval Ratings

The last approval rating saw ‘Disapprove’ reach its highest level so far, with many readers citing the handling of the Bahrain Grand Prix cancellation as having a major influence on their voting.

Jan 2010Feb 2010Mar 2010Apr 2010May 2010Jun 2010Jul 2010Aug 2010Sep 2010Oct 2010Nov 2010Dec 2010Jan 2011Feb 2011Mar 2011Apr 2011May 2011Jun 2011
No opinion29.3329.3222.7123.2113.6923.8822.2622.6412.2615.9811.5313.115.798.63
DateApproveDisapproveNo opinion
April-June 201112%79%9%
January-March 201147%37%16%
December 201053%34%13%
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%

The Jean Todt Approval Rating was a monthly feature in 2010. It is being run quarterly during 2011.

Debates and polls

Browse all debates and polls

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.

80 comments on “Jean Todt’s Approval Rating 2011: Part 3”

  1. Disapprove – BBC/Sky deal and Turkey being dropped.

    1. BBC/Sky deal

      That’s like blaming him for global warming – he had nothing to do with that.

      1. Meh, he could have stopped it.

        1. Actually, he couldn’t have. The deal was orchestrated by Sky and the BBC, and implemented by FOM under the terms of the Concorde Agreement. Jean Todt has no power to control the commercial rights of the sport.

        2. The deal was orchestrated by Sky and the BBC, and implemented by FOM under the terms of the Concorde Agreement.

          I’d like evidence to back up your claims.

          1. Yes, that’s right. I forgot – we have to attack Bernie at every opportunity, even when he has done nothing wrong. Indeed, in this case, he was opposed to the move.

            The BBC did not give up their right to broadcast. They retained it, but under the terms of the Concorde Agreement, they are able to use those rights as they see fit. They did the deal with Sky on their own, which is not only consistent with what Bernie says happened, but is the basis of the parlimentary inquriy that one of the MPs demanded – he wanted to know whether the BBC had deliberately retained the rights and worked the deal with Sky to prevent another commercial channel from acquiring them.

            Like Bernie said, he spoke to other channels – we all saw the proposal Channel 4 put forward – but he was unable to do anything until such time as the BBC gave up the rights entirely because they were the exclusive broadcaster; their coverage forms the basis of the world feed. Bernie had to wait for them to make their move. And FOM cannot rightly say “no, you cannot broadcast the sport” to Sky because the Concorde Agreement permits Formula 1 on pay-per-view under the arrangement that Sky and the BBC came up with, because to do so would be anti-competitive.

          2. No Prisoner Monkeys.

            I am skeptical that all the information that you are basing you ideas on is true.

            I am skeptical that what Bernie has said is necessarily the truth.

            I am skeptical that the BBC would have so much room within their previous contract to maneuver their coverage like this on their own without people like Bernie (and/or others) signing off on it.

            I am NOT saying that Bernie is wrong, or anyone else is for that matter. I am just asking you to EXPLAIN how I know what you have said is accurate.

            I want to you to show me how I know what you say to be accurate.

          3. I want to you to show me how I know what you say to be accurate.

            Because I take the time to research these things before I post them. When news of the Sky-BBC deal first broke, I didn’t get swept up in the wave of emotion – mostly rage – that washed over everyone (and led to them posting things without fully understanding what was happening). And I maintain that standard. If I post something that I think is going to be controversial – even slightly – I make damn sure that I’m standing on solid ground first.

      2. That’s like blaming him for global warming – he had nothing to do with that.

        My concern is that people are going to blame him for it regardless.

    2. The broadcasting rights are sold by the commercial rights holder, not the governing body, so Todt isn’t directly responsible for that. Hence it’s not mentioned in the article.

      1. He is not responsible, but he might have gone public saying he does not feel comfortable with pay per view TV or the complicated deal.

        I guess he is to smart to get pulled into that, even the teams first claimed they would have non of it, and are now all quit on the subject.

        1. He is not responsible, but he might have gone public saying he does not feel comfortable with pay per view TV or the complicated deal.

          And what would that have achieved? All it would do is drive a wedge between Bernie and Todt. They’ve already gone three rounds over Bahrain – Todt kept trying to force Bernie to side with him or the teams before the WMSC vote by asking him to produce alternate calendars for the WMSC to discuss – so this only would have done more damage.

          1. I see your point – but the move from free to pay tv is a huge move. Many fans would have appreciated a word of support from Todt even if it ultimately came to nothing.

          2. It wouldn’t have come to nothing – it would have done damage.

            Before the WMSC voted on Bahrain, Jean Todt kept asking Bernie to come up with an alternative calendar. There were two proposals: one was to reinstate Bahrain with immediate effect, and the other was to move it to the very back of the calendar.

            At the time, the FIA and the teams were at loggerheads over the best way to proceed. The FIA wanted Bahrain back in straight away, but the teams wanted to wait. And in the middle of it all, Bernie was being Switzerland – neutral, refusing to commit one way or the other. Todt kept pressuing him to draw up an alternative calendar. The idea was to force Bernie to take a side, and whichever side he took would likely win out in the stalemate.

            If Bernie reinstated Bahrain, he would be siding with the FIA. If he put it at the end of the season, he was throwing support behind the teams. Because Todt kept trying to force Bernie’s hand, their relationship broke down. In the end, Bernie stayed out of the conflict until the WMSC voted to reinstate Bahrain immediately.

            While Todt might disapprove of the Sky-BBC deal, making his thoughts known publicly could end very badly by driving a further wedge between the FIA and FOM. Both the FIA and the teams want a bigger say in the running of the sport when it comes to the next Concorde Agreement, and giving “a word of support to the fans” would only undo Todt’s position on the next round of talks.

            Sure, it might have had its uses in the short term – but in the long run, it would have been very bad.

      2. I Thought the president of the FIA can veto anything?

        1. Only in the sportng and technical regulations. The Sky-BBC deal comes under the commercial agreement.

    3. He is French and so is the FIA the worlds car governing body I think they can still watch it on eurosport. I just wanted to say that Im very happy with turkey drop off F1 needs venues with caracter, nature and venues with financial stability.

      1. Todt had nothing to do with the TV deal, blame Ecclestone for that.

  2. I voted No Opinion based on what’s happened since the last vote but I disapprove of his tenure in total.

    1. I’ve gone with disaprove not because what’s happened this month but because, as I said last time, Todt had better do something special to win me back over.

      Loosing Turkey’s a great shame, excellent track, can’t help but think the way the FIA and FOM run the sport is a negative thing overall.

    2. This is exactly how I felt and voted the same.

  3. The phrase “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” springs to mind – nothing is broken, and Todt hasn’t tried to fix anything. Perhaps the only blemish is the OTBD saga, but I put the implementation of that down to others. I don’t recall Todt ever weighing in directly on that one.

  4. I voted disapprove mostly because of the confusion created by the exhaust blown diffuser restrictions. They handled it so badly that I was for moments ashamed of F1. Not of the FIA, they have been doing things wrong since a long time ago.

    1. I would defend him on this one. Just because you have so many powerful groups with conflicting and very complicated interests on this one.

      It was done badly, but… Yeah, there was no right solution.

  5. Turkey – The FIA it would seem has done very little to encourage motor sport in the lower classes. Without a structure to get drivers starting young in carts and then through the ranks. Then F1 is a sport is so distant with no viewable road for the masses.

    Engine – personally I am not convinced a new smaller engine is the best way to the future. I don’t yet see super cars going down this path. The smallest engine I’ve seen in a Ferrari is a 2 ltr V6 and that wasn’t really a Ferrari it was a Dino206, with engine built by Fiat and that soon went up to 2.4 ltr the Dino246.

    Simon – PURE – Can understand why the teams were upset.

    Exhaust Blowing – In a lot of sports the equivalent of Silverstone would have been removed from the championship, because it was conducted well outside the rules of the rest of the championship.

    Young Drivers – A problem that needs solving fairly quickly. Having new drivers in F1 without much testing and then kicking them out after one season or sooner is not good for the sport.
    Also I think that some teams are hanging on to some drivers that should go, just because they are a safe pair of hands (sometimes).

    Formula E – A good starting place, maybe. If it does start, after the first season, I would like to see a restriction of the number of battery packs/season. That might also be a good idea for KERS batteries.

    All in all that makes a Disapprove for me.

    1. The very first Ferrari sports car was powered by a 1.5 liter V-12 and their F1 car in 1950 had a supercharged 1.5L version of this engine.

    2. Formula E – A good starting place, maybe. If it does start, after the first season, I would like to see a restriction of the number of battery packs/season. That might also be a good idea for KERS batteries.

      If they are forced to go with Li-Ion technology in their batteries, it is too soon to be able to expect the batteries to deliver that much power and last a long period of time. Maybe in 5 years, but not right now. But it’s still a good idea for the future.

  6. I am going to vote “No opinion”. He has right fully not done anything stupid after the Bahrain Saga.

    Regarding the three 1-hour sessions on Friday with one for young drivers, am I the only one who actually likes it? I think it is a fantastic idea. If Todt had come up with it, I would have given him an approve! But the reports are inaccurate.

    Keith, I think you need to have separate Bernie approval rating and Todt approval ratings now. The way it is now (with no rating for Bernie) is that Todt is being made the administrative poster boy of F1. People are going to ignorantly vote “disapprove” to him because of the Sky/BBC fiasco whereas he had nothing to do with it.

    1. I voted for no opinion.
      I am sad Turkey’s been dropped, but that was forseeable and the race saw little fans, so it is legitimate.
      I can’t judge the 2014 rules as I’m not an expert, so I will wait and see before judging.
      Gilles Simon joining PURE is not bad for me, but the EBD ban has been very bad.
      Young drivers tests are a good thing as Formula E.

    2. Keith, I think you need to have separate Bernie approval rating and Todt approval ratings now.

      Why? Everyone will just vote “disapprove” for Bernie. It’s not going to tell us anything that we don’t already know – people don’t like Ecclestone.

      1. I wouldn’t, my opinion on him (Bernie) does vary from subject to subject, but I maintain the sport is far bigger and better because of him.

  7. Was it since the last approval rating that the future ground effects regulations were dropped?

    1. I think that was announced more or less immediately after the engine package was announce, or little before that.

      1. In that case disapprove from me.

  8. Only for the Silverstone affair it’s a huge disapprove, but on the rest of subjects there’s no chance to give Todt many positive points. On the engine issue he was the promoter of the 4 cylinder option and had to swallow the V6 choice because of the manufacturers and teams pressure. The Simon story also scores negative.
    Turkish GP is another negative. On the Young drivers and also overall F1 testing, something has to be done. For the time being the best choice without rising the costs is to test on mondays after the races like the motorcicles do. Formula E seems to be a good idea, but is far from becoming a reality soon.

    1. Agree. Exhaust-gate was really really bad. For that alone disapprove.

  9. I am not sure about it right now.
    On the one hand I like the Formula E idea, it does a lot more to make help motorsports contribute to clean development than any greenwash on existing championships. And Todt did not really do anything wrong in the past couple of weeks (it did off cours include the summer holidays), so compared to Mosley he is doing a wonderfull job.
    The last thing he was involved in, was getting France closer to a getting back on the calendar, the fact it was a deal to share with Belgium made this bittersweet, but that is about the money, something Bernie is responsible for. The push to get young drivers more time in the cars can only be greeted.

    On the other hand, he did not do anything to improve the mess in Bahrain, the mess with the exhaust blown diffusor nor did he show any interest in the calendar for next year.
    The engine rules were evidently a mess, leaving just about all initiative to the teams to come up with a solution, again showing a lack of leadership. The blooper with Gilles only added to that impression.
    The rules agreed on are now really quite restrictive and I see them as an opportunity missed to get more scope for future development written into them. The aero package is a disappointment, as it means more or less staying fixed on what we have with the wings and DRS to “enable overtaking”

    After writing this down, I will stay with Disapprove, as the negatives weigh heavier than any little positives there were recently.

    1. Absolutely agree. I thought him keeping out of the way was a good thing at first (mostly because it meant he wouldn’t do a Max) but he just hasn’t shown any real leadership skills.

    2. Have to agree with you Bas and Steph, he hasn’t helped much, and the result has been bad. Maybe a bit more leadership/decisiveness wouldn’t have hurt.

      The Formula E idea sounds good, and on balance I like the French GP, inclusive the sharing which probably is what will keep Spa on the calender.

      But he hasn’t really gotten any real results with his other efforts for F1.

  10. The only good point for me this time is the V6s, so I have to disapprove. To begin with Todt giving F1 a wide berth was a good thing, but since then things have been building up and he’s not dealing with them desicively. As Scribe said above, he will have to do something major to get back in my good books from this point (making sure young driver practice goes ahead would be a good start).

  11. Apart from the young driver test I don’t find anything else positive.

  12. I think Todt has brought a great deal of stability to F1. He does not seem to have this huge ego that he needs to feed all the time, instead he is trying to get the job done, and in the main I think he is doing a decent one.

    That said, and yes, although the FIA are not allowed by EU edict to own/control F1 TV and commercial rights (unlike for example FIFA), I think it would have been good if he could have expressed some position or preference re the UK TV rights, and not only because so many of the F1 teams are based here.

    The fans have been let down, the BBC free-to-air coverage is second to none, and surely the one thing Todt would have been entitled to express a view on is the overall numbers of fans gaining access to the sport, which under the new deal could in the long term be drastically educed.

    So, a lack of leadership and vision.

    Also the stewarding seems inconsistent, e.g. Hamilton getting a penalty every time, but Schumacher not.

    Allowing stewards (such as Nigel Mansell) to express strong opinions about drivers in the press, yet ruling on those same drivers (some would argue quite harshly) in on-track incidents. Seems very inappropriate.

    1. *drastically reduced.*

  13. Disapprove.

    I’d be relatively neutral to Todt’s reign thus far both liking it and disliking it in equal measures. However by pushing the engine rules back by a year and by being so inconsistent with the exhaust blown diffuser scenario its a disapprove from me.

  14. I think blaming Todt for the blown diffuser saga isn’t correct.

    the fia informed the teams of the ban back in May yet the teams seemingly left it last minuite to say there were reliability concerns & it was certain manufacturer’s which they started using politics to get there own way.

    also todt didn’t come up with the regulations & was as far as im aware not involved in any of the negotiations or disucssions about them because he isn’t part of any of the technical groups.
    any blame on the fia side would lie with charlie whiting.

    i also think the v6 engine regs were proposed by fota rather than the fia so i dont see how you can blame him for that either.

    same with the bbc/sky deal, he could have done nothing to prevent it & was not involved in any way.

    1. The FIA wasn’t entitled to ask for a mid-season ban on non-safety grounds. In the specific way it chose to implement it broke 4 different regulations. The teams were therefore entitled to completely ignore it and appeal any attempts at banning that resulted, and the Court of Appeal would have been obliged to rule in their favour. This was a relatively mild response from the teams.

      All it would have taken from Jean was a reminder to his subordinates about the rules and the whole thing would have been avoided.

      The V6 engines can be blamed on Jean… …but only if you think they are worse than the previous V4 ones. Once the V4s were ratified, technically the FIA isn’t entitled to change its mind. However, if you think V6s are better than V4s, it would be reasonable to argue that turning a blind eye to the regulation breach may have been in the sport’s best interests – and therefore a plus point for Jean’s tenure.

      I agree with you on the BBC/Sky deal being outside of the FIA’s influence.

      1. I actually like the proposed V6 turbo’s, Not really sure why there is so much resistence to them from some fans?

        I recall back to the late 70s when Turbo’s 1st came in many fans were against them, However by the end of the Turbo-era in 1989 most fans were against banning them.

        Also looking over at America most fans of Indycar racing were against moving away from Turbo’s for 1997 & are very excited about the return of Turbo’s next year, Turbo’s that will be very similar to what F1 will run BTW.

        1. A lot of fans are against change unless they see some point to it. There are two big reasons for it – people don’t like wasting effort on pointless change and small teams with low budgets generally lose out when big rule changes are made.

          Naturally there are also counter-arguments.

  15. Voting ‘approve’ because he hasn’t done anything silly in the last survey period, while at the same time keeping his head down and introducing stability in the FIA. Mind you, it’s not an overwhelming approval of his support, but I don’t really vote ‘no opinion’ in these surveys – either you approve of his work or you don’t. And in this case, the last quarter has been a good one for Todt.

    Once the Concorde renewals talks begin again, though, it may become a different story.

  16. well, todt is not directly responsible of the penalties to hamilton or the rules over exhausts blown diffuser. in this case, people reports to him, and according to what they say and advise, he decides and takes responsabilities.

    the truth is, from “well informed sources”, he is having a very hard time to be accepted in the FIA by all the member and federations. he has been focusing so far in cleaning the organisation and getting rid of those who don’t have a straight and honest attitude. hence a very unpopular position for him.
    so far, the FIA was working like a mafia : federations around the world working between themselves “under the table”, “i offer you this, you get me that” sort of business.

    exactly like when he joined ferrari in the 90’s, except that today is a far more political business.

    I read for example in a french magazine, that the barhain story was actually ecclestone pushing into one direction, before changing his position suddenly and putting todt in the responsability of the fiasco.

    I think, things will improve on the long term, balestre and then mosley have done so much harm, that things won’t be solved immediately.
    and he has to work with Ecclestone…a very hard task.

    I thought Todt (well the FIA) also created a new sportscar championship?

    1. This is an intruiging insight as to why Jean is having difficulties in power, pi. While it cannot explain all the problems, it would certainly explain a fair proportion of them. As a large organisation accustomed to psuedopolitics, working through the FIA must be like moving through treacle sometimes.

      The moment Bahrain cleared its financial obligations or force majuere was in play, responsibility was always going to switch from Bernie to Jean. That’s simply how the contract situation works and Jean should have foreseen it.

      Jean has given approval for the pre-existing ILMC (Intercontinental Le Mans Cup) to become a World Championship in exchange for the FIA gaining partial control over its regulations. There’s a fair bit of unease in the sportscar community over the move – whether they prefer ACO- or IMSA-sanctioned series, the majority of them seem to prefer the FIA to be kept as much at arms’ length as possible. To be fair, the last time the FIA got seriously involved at sportscars, completely different people were in power. I just hope things get more organised for hereonin because the uncertainty caused by the change in power has caused some significant delays…

  17. Turkey – much as I dislike the circuit being dropped while certain others kept on, many of those contracts had already been decided by Bernie. This wasn’t really in Jean’s hands, except that I respect his enforcement of the maximum-20-race calender rule against pressure from Bernie. A weaker president might have acquiesced, creating negative consequences.

    2014 engine rules – Better, but I still don’t believe these are fixed. Not given the way the last version of the rules got treated. Ratified regs are supposed to be ratified. No difference, on balance.

    Gilles Simon – last I heard, direct transfers between FIA and team positions (in either direction) were banned unless a gap of 48 months existed between holding the former and latter positions. Information transfers are a particular interest of mine and the poor information hygeine displayed here obliges me to consider this a significant disapproval action.

    Exhaust-blown diffusers – the second-worst action he’s taken in the last 3 months (the worst one I will cover at the end of the comment). Jean tried to enforce a rule using means not actually available to him and was surprised when it didn’t work. The checks and balances before new rules may be implemented are there for several very good reasons. If Jean doesn’t like that, he is, quite bluntly, in the wrong job.

    Young drivers’ practising – We need someone to stand up for this. Approved, but would like some concrete action in the next quarter, whether that’s encouraging the teams to come up with a decent, timely consensus answer or providing an appropriate menu of choices for the teams to vote upon.

    Formula E – good news. For all the flak sustainable racing gets, it will be very useful for motorsport to have somewhere high-profile to experiment with the emerging technologies.

    My worst gripe with Jean, however, is in sportscars. The WEC calender was supposed to be announced in Silverstone last weekend. It’s now been delayed until the middle of November, with no certainty as to the number of events and a rumour that Bahrain may end up on the calender as some bizarre F1 replacement. This is also making it difficult for other organisers to arrange their calenders to avoid clashes because of the amount of notice teams need. So bad handling of F1 last quarter is indirectly helping to hamper organisation of racing series across the whole northern hemisphere next quarter.

    Overall: a clear disapproval.

    1. Gilles Simon – last I heard, direct transfers between FIA and team positions (in either direction) were banned unless a gap of 48 months existed between holding the former and latter positions.

      There may be an exemption in this case – the new engines don’t come into effect until 2014. Simon moved to PURE shortly after the formula was decided, so the manufacturers wouldn’t have had time to submit plans for their next generation of engines. Thus, Simon has no access to any information they might have had (except for the current generation, but that knowledge will prove useless). The only unseful knowledge that Simon has is the knoweldge of the 2014 engine regulations – but becuse the manufacturers were instrumental in making the engine formula happen, they have the same knowledge that Simon has.

      1. No such exemption has been written into the regulations, as far as I can tell. Among other things Gilles will have had access to a massive database of information he can cross-reference to make the knowledge of the 2014 regulations useful.

    2. How bad is it, I wasn’t even aware of that last point. Good thing then I voted disapprove.

      I can understand its not easy going (as pi described above) but at almost every term Todt seems to lack any desiciveness to get things done in time, instead leaving it partly to build up to a crises before somehow setting matters.

      As for the team personell, if there’s supposed to be a 48 month distance, how is it that Byrne can be a Todt advisor and at the same time work for Ferrari (true as an external consultant) on a rumoured new sportscar? Curious

      1. If the regulations are as they were, it’s possible because only F1 teams are affected by the ruling. Sportscars are another discipline altogether and Ferrari would presumably be paying for Rory’s services through the sportscar payroll rather than the F1 one.

  18. the fans are upset and it shows on the results. The blown difuser affair was done very badly. The engine for 2013 changed at the very end to v6 was done like most of the times in a crapy way. The tv deal in the uk have all the fans fuming.
    I never liked todt, since the dakar days. To me he is doing a decent job, but clearly the fans say they don’t aprove.

  19. Am I the only one who thinks of the French tennis player first when they read “Gilles Simon”?

  20. I disapprove of his actions.

    Blown diffusers and engine rules is the main reason for this as I see that to be under his most direct influence. Also, this Formula E idea seems like a half-baked idea to gain a bit of good press with environment sensitive media. At the same time we have him scrapping electric-only powered F1 cars trough pit-lane with an excuse that the lack of sound would make it dangerous for people in the pits?!??!
    Also, instead of making up a new racing series some time in the future why not get behind an existing racing project involving electric cars which is due to have its first race in two months time?

    Fun fact: when you google “Formula E” results you get is a company from New Zealand that rents electric karts, a karting class and no mention at all of this pie in the sky electric racing series.

    1. I missed the “scrapping engine-only in pits” move. Surely having speakers by each pit garage and engineering bay making a recorded engine sound when cars were in proximity would have solved the issue cheaply and simply?

  21. Pity about Turkey being dropped, but it was inevitable. Blown diffusers was a mess for all involved, Don’t care about new engine regs (and won’t until everyone has a V12). Kudos to him for trying to encourage young drivers and for bringing back testing.

    Overall I approve, just get rid of Bernie.

    1. It is a pity about Turkey being axed, it’s my favourite circuit. However, I can’t let my personal feelings cloud my judgement over what was a sensible decision.

  22. “and won’t until everyone has a V12”

    wouldnt be bad but it will never happen because of the difficulties v12’s bring in.

    they use more fuel so require a larger fuel tank & also take up more room on there own not only due to the size of the unit but also additional cooling. v12’s are also heavier than other units.
    All this comprimises the overall package which costs performance as you end up with a longer, larger & heavier car.

    worth remembering that ferrari never went from a v12 to a v10 for 1996 beceuase they had to, they did it because the v12 was causing problems with the overall design of the car which was costing them performance.

  23. I don’t have any problems with what he has done recently apart from the hot-blowing EBD debacle. That was a frightful mess.

    I try to go easy on the guy. I fear many people will judge him based on the BBC/Sky deal. Not really his domain.

  24. Ruebens move over for the championship ! We now have a former employee of ferrari running the show, god what do we expect, the guy is a cheat and the FIA should be ashamed of electing such a terrible choice

    1. What has made you come to that conclusion? I don’t believe he ever cheated at Ferrari…

  25. I like the Young Driver Testing idea, people like Riccirado and Alguersuari who come in during a season need to know the car before driving it.

  26. No opinion this time round.

    Nothing (other than Turkey, which I think was more the commercial right’s holders fault than the FIA) which has happened I have actually raised an eyebrow at.

  27. Todt is doing a better job the max mosley
    Mosley was just like bernie

  28. Todt is down to a 12% approval rating.

    What was he doing in June and November 2010, when his approval rating was over 70%?

    1. Nothing much? At least nothing upsetting or worrying?

      Wasn’t it the time they announced quite refreshing aero rules to come in 2013 as well?

    2. According to the current vote so far its about 30% approve 50% disaprove now

  29. I disapprove. Mainly on the V6 fiasco.

    I think Formula 1 needs to commit itself more on going green. It has to be the pinnacle in motorsport, no doubt, but the solution is not to step back from the 4 cylinder engines to V6, there should be a real revolution in engines to more greener sources. And this shouldn’t hinder performance. We’re talking multi billion dollar corporations here with some of the finnest technicians and engineers in the world. Can’t they come up with a new generation of engines that can deliver current F1 like performance, but completely green?

    If they did this it would be a success and an example for the world. F1, the pinnacle of motorsport and an example for the world. Also a leading ´, cutting edge innovator in green energies… That sounds good to me. Yes, electric cars doesn’t sound (literaly) as good as petrol cars- find a solution to make the sound exciting! Maybe even a petrol sound emulating device? They could create a signature sound for the green F1 cars, something that would give the audience the audio cue of acceleration and deceleration…

  30. Disapprove for the EBD mess, making a joke of the technical rules governing the sport.

  31. People complain that he isn’t doing anything, but that’s the way it should be in my opinion. Hardly any decisions should come down to Todt. There is a stack of hierarchy underneath him, he shouldn’t be needing to over-rule it or ‘show leadership’ hardly ever.

    1. But then he should get this “hierarchy” to actually perform. The EBD, 2013/4 engine/aero rules showed they either messed up or let the teams deliberate and delay until ending with a quite different (and in case of aero definitely) and disappointing result. Same thing for the young drivers, there is no real result.

      Either they have the wrong solution in mind, or they are too passive in waiting for a compromise to appear from somewhere else.

    2. Nonetheless, some decisions still do come down to Todt, and others benefit from the influence of the FIA President (for example when underlings forget the regulations, he should set them – and the situation they caused – on the right path again).

  32. Disapprove.

    Although I’m not sure how much influence this guy has the direction F1’s taking is not to my liking.
    KERS,a silly PC ‘green’ inspired cash draining and weight increasing ‘race enhancer’.
    Ugly narrow rear wings with a another silly device to enhance race choreography.
    Drab circuits, some in countries that don’t deserve a cent in foreign aid or tourist money, let alone a F1 race.
    Bloody safety car coming out every time a sparrow lands on the track.
    Politically correct Stewards that discourage aggressive Senna/Mansell like driving….those guys wound have been suspended or banned in today’s climate.
    Not enough testing allowed…the bottom half of the table should be allowed extra.

    Rant over……

  33. I have to admit I’m very excited to see Formula E happen. I’m hopeful that they bring a bit back to the days of experimentation to encourage development of new technologies. It’d be neat to see a series where people are bringing lots of new things to the table and delve into the world of the unknown. Something we really haven’t had at the top tier of motorsport since probably the 80’s.

Comments are closed.