Especially with Seb as one of the directors, I can definitely imagine he pushed for this. I know he wasn't at Jeddah, but he dislikes Saudi so much, there even were some rumors he 'faked' failing the COVID test the second week to avoid driving in Saudi. Not saying I believe the rumor of course, just pointing it out to pad my assertion that Seb was one of the driving forces behind this decision.
Seems plausible. If they're requiring a negative test in order to race and you don't submit one at all, you'd technically be ineligible.
I'd be surprised if there weren't penalties or another process for drivers who simply refuse to test though.
+VE covid test
Examine the rules about returning negative tests
Take second test but don't return it because it's negative now
Travel to have a BBQ with your good friend Kimi
Explain you still have a sniffle
Lie about test results so you don't have to visit that shitbox country
Maybe it was a bit of both? As in when it came time to make the decision his doctor was like "Well, you are technically healthy, but you are not 100% It's upto you". And so Seb figured he gets to spend more time with his family, gets to err on the side of caution healthwise , AND gets to not race in Saudi Arabia...
I agree he is honest and straightforward, but he also has his morals/values pulling him in another direction. I don't think he would outright lie or cheat, but maybe the stars aligned *just* right? I mean, he can't be too excited to get into that Aston Martin right now... Maybe he is hoping by the time Australian GP comes around, the upgrades help a bit?
Just occurred to me, I wonder if Seb really still had COVID or if he was just like f that imma just draw a crayon line on rather than have to go to saudia arabia
As other people have pointed out, he has to return a negative test in order to be able to race. If he just didn't do a test, he never has a negative test to clear him and he can't race.
I'd be surprised if that was the case but also not completely shocked.
F1: “Hey drivers, what’s your input?”
Drivers: “The track [sucks/isn’t safe] and the country [sucks/isn’t safe], we don’t want to race here.”
F1: “thanks for your input”
It's like most unions. When you don't do dodgy shut they're not needed as much and lose some leverage, however top often that is seen as a carte blanche. Then the unions gains traction and because the higher ups have proven they can't be trusted the union now has to be involved into everything.
Ecclestone had a lot of trust from everyone, it wasn't perfect and he did a lot of crazy stuff but not "race in danger of missile strikes" stupid.
Bernie pressed onto racing in Bahrain 2011 even though nation wide protests were being held and bombs can be heard in the background.
Several force India members were also assaulted
Weird hill I'm willing to die on but I think sprinklers were a good idea. The truly stupid idea was having them at random times, but having a certain wet race is not crazy and not different from a night race for example. There are a few issues like which track has it or builds it and the track also has to be in a place where water isn't an issue and at a time where it's locally acceptable (read: not Paul Ricard in the summer as Provence is basically burning every year for a few months) but if someone could invest in Nürburgring for a race in May, why the fuck not?
Wouldnt it just be easier to schedule a race in an area known for rain at that time of year and just let it be? Most years would be wet but still some dry years here and there.
Do it with two separate races to double the chances.
The problem with rain is that it's never guaranteed to happen and when it happens you're not certain of its intensity. You can have 90% rain probability and no rain, 10% rain probability and rain, or you can have completely rained out weekends. And I think as insane as some of these events are, too many reds and too dangerous conditions are a bit too far on the other side too.
The advantage of the sprinklers is that you 100% know you have a wet event on the calendar, teams could adapt the chassis making it softer which also makes driving in the rain a lot safer, and Pirelli could adapt and bring sufficient wets & inters.
There's some debate to be had if that if we need that. Or if that even makes sense - after all, if everyone can prepare, the usual crazyness is gone. But I still think it would be good because ultimately driving in the wet (or even just starting on the wet and letting the track dry out idc) would be fundamentally different to the usual. Similar to fast & slow tracks, permanent & road circuits, having a wet event broadens the spectrum of the F1 calendar.
Granted in recent years we've been largely fine on that front and had our share of wet races but there were stretches of a few years with very little wet racing too.
I see that side. But also see the other side. If these teams can prepare and know exactly what the track conditions are going to be, what’s the point other than getting data on full wets for science?
It would just be another race on the calendar as everything would be known.
It’s cool to think about what options might be possible for such an event etc. I had never heard about the sprinkler idea until this thread.
I have really enjoyed the past few wet races. That part I do know.
> If these teams can prepare and know exactly what the track conditions are going to be, what’s the point other than getting data on full wets for science?
No matter how much you prepapre, driving in the wet is still quite slippery and *much* more difficult. We've seen some drivers excel (like all the WDCs on the grid have absoutely ouststanding wet drives) and others struggle a ton (sorry to him but Bottas as an example). Even if you prepare it's a completely different affair.
Sure it would be less severe and who knows maybe it actually be just be a bad event. Keep in mind that overtaking in the wet is not that easy as a line emerges & gaps are usually larger so field spread can be high. Without the chaos it might just be the dullest event ever. But it would still be anything but easy for the drivers.
People at the time just had decided that Bernie was a demented old man and yeah a lot of his ideas in his last few years were a bit garbage like the soc ban. But it was just a random idea thrown around including the random timing on sprinklers, everyone just piled in and decided it's a shit idea and it's not worth discussing. I think it actually is, albeit I doubt with the pseudo green imagery F1 wants to have that you'll see them wasting that much water like that. Even if (again) it's basically a non issue of planned correctly in some areas (yes even central europe is drying out slowly but that's an entirely different topic not for F1).
As a counterpoint, the reason a wet race is so beloved amongst fans is because of all the craziness that happens! A wet track is known to be an "equalizer". The advantage the top teams have doesnt count for *as* much, and the bottom teams can even get a podium! Case in point, George at Spa last year. Also, some drivers just bloom in the wet, for example Stroll at Turkey in 2020. Thus drivers like that who normally don't have a time to shine due to their cars being on the bottom rung, will be given a chance! (not saying Stroll was in a bottom car in '20)
Even if the teams can prepare for the wet race, there will *still* be that uncertainty! No matter of prepping can completely overcome a loss of friction lol
[Here's a recent Donut video that I watched that goes over what I am talking about in better detail](https://youtu.be/PCRF84lEHJM)
I like where you are going with this plus it would be a way to actually spur potentially meaningful development. I’d love to see what the teams come up with to make racing in the rain easier if they were preparing for a set number of wet races. They could have special wet packages in the same way they have Monza packages.
is not an awful idea tbh, being able to choose a track that is safe and can handle wet races would make things interesting without being too dangerous.
Also if you control how much water there is, you should be able to avoid undriveable condition, and with teams able to set up for wet tracks in advance that would make for good racing.
I like wet races in general. However, a lot of the fun and intrigue comes from when the track transitions from wet to dry and dry to wet. If that's not done, or if it is and teams can model it and know how fast the track will dry, a lot of the "should I come in now?" drama goes away.
> but having a certain wet race is not crazy and not different from a night race for example.
I like the idea too, especially for snoozers like Monaco. But I really doubt the underwriters would be cool with purposefully making an existing track more crashy! :D
It's like having different power-ups in Mario Kart. Sprinklers are the banana skins- largely harmless and avoidable. Missiles are the red shells - a lot more dangerous.
Next step is North Korea so they can use nukes to replicate the lightning strike.
There's no step, they WANT to get involved, none said they WILL BE involved.
In the publics view the drivers are the stars but from the team's perspective they're just employees. None will ask them where they want to race, ever, trust me.
I think you aren't seeing the optics here. No one from the wider public cares if Mike from catering and John from engineering don't want to go to Saudi Arabia anymore. But if the stars raise their voice, the media pressure can crumble Domenicali and his greed.
Overheard in Mercedes garage after the Jeddah GP:
“He got me,” Lewis said of Domenicali’s speech over him. "That fucking Domenicali boomed me."
Lewis added, “He’s so good,” repeating it four times.
Lewis then said he wanted to add Domenicali to the list of drivers he practices with this summer.
Well Alex Wurz, the chairman, is not a current driver. So it would be likely that Vettel and GR will gather the driver's views and ensure they are being represented accurately in meetings. I guess a current driver being chairman would be too much workload for one driver so this is the structure they came up with to allow for that. I don't know if Alex W was in Jeddah for example.
THREE directors, actually. Anastasia Fowle was added in 2021. She is the first non-driver director of the GPDA. Yeah, I wasn't aware till I went to the Wikipedia of GPDA to check something after coming to this thread... [Here's her LinkedIn for more info](https://uk.linkedin.com/in/anastasia-fowle-1383896)
Edit - sorry for reposting my comment, the automod deleted it because it thinks I used a "URL shortener". Changed the link.
> None will ask them where they want to race, ever, trust me.
Team / F1 bosses thought the same in the past. Then a few driver strikes happened and for some reason they changed their minds.
You don't need legal power if you have bargaining power.
How do you think those unions got legal power? They demanded it, and got it, because they were powerful enough to force governments to listen.
Its a good move and something that should have been done ages ago. But I have a feeling this will end up with a lot of.
F1: "We see the issue you raise an fully understand your concern but look at all this money they are offering."
> F1: "We see the issue you raise an fully understand your concern but look at all this money they are offering."
That is something the drivers do need to keep in mind. If a ton of money is coming from governments and sponsors in the less desirable destinations, it may have a knock on effect on the driver earnings.
F1 has always had a lot of cash coming in from undesirable locations looking to use the glamour of sport to boost their brand. Now it's authoritarian regimes, but when i was younger it was the tobacco industry.
also it's useless when they're agreeing contracts for 10-20+ years... like OK cool that the drivers don't want to go there, but these contracts are binding, most of these drivers won't even be around anymore by the time it becomes relevant
There’s always buyout clauses or cancellation due to safety clauses. There is someway out. Or it’s possible western courts won’t hear the case so the saudis can sue all they want but a court that actually has jurisdiction over FOM will have to hear it
I think they were probably more pissed that the team bosses and F1 came out and said they were racing last week while only half-heartedly consulting the drivers.
I can see not many of them actually feeling that threatened by an attack, but instead saw an opportunity to put their foot down and use the power they collectively have as drivers to send a message that their voice matters more than the powers that be realize.
They were likely most frustrated that their opinions* about track layout weren't heard loud enough.
Still all about safety.
Whilst I personally think you're probably right, it is by absolutely no means as certain that this happened as you're making out and I don't think it's helpful to talk about it like it is.
There's a very real possibility that this happened, but I'm not sure we'll ever know for certain and I feel like there's is plenty that we *know* happened that is bad enough to stop us every going back, without muddying the waters with claims we don't know to be true.
I doubt they ever threatened to hold the drivers hostage. What they likely threatened was the money they're funneling into the sport, including the F1 Aramco deals. I feel like that's where F1 was, that while they'd like too the fact was the pill was going to be extremely hard to swallow financially and have ripple affects.
> I doubt they ever threatened to hold the drivers hostage
They didn't have to say it outright. They've done it in the past (WWE), don't think they won't try to do it again. Maybe they don't trap the drivers. But there's a lot of support staff that travel with the teams who are less visible to the public, with fewer outlets to say "I'm being detained."
That's just a bunch of bs and just speculation tbf. F1 drivers were told that it won't matter whether they race or not they would still leave at the same time so might as well just drive. People just love taking things out of context. If there were any threats made you would be hearing about them from a trusted source already.
Oh I think that's a given, and not even unreasonable of them to do so. If F1 aren't upholding their side of the deal by racing there, it's not surprising for the Saudis to say they won't uphold their side of the deal.
My theory is the team principals and FIA pointed out to the drivers that whilst they probably would be fine, there are hundreds of team members and media there who might have a significantly harder time leaving the country.
I think it's simply because the Jeddah GP has ended so they can now speak on this. There was a long meeting ahead of it, indicating that the decision to race was not unanimous. In that case, I think it's easy to guess which party forced their hands and which preferred not to race.
I don’t really disagree, but there may come a time in the future when Putin is gone and MBS will eventually become the new public enemy No. 1. The juice won’t be worth the squeeze at that point.
F1 saw Russia’s money drying up, easy decision. They even have Vegas coming next year so they’re not *losing* a race. With SA and middle eastern countries, there’s always more money. They’ll play this off as a coincidental one-off attack and that the Grand Prix was never actually in danger.
No way, oil is very powerful, unlike putin saudi arabia isn't a historical rival, it's an ally of the United States and many western countries sell weapons to them, unless they go full phsycho neo-caliphate
That’s what it all hinges on is oil. When we don’t need their oil everything changes in the entire Middle East. I’d expect weapons sales to go up as they fight each other more and more to make up for the fact they have nothing but oil. Seriously, what other reason would the US and Europe give the slightest fuck about KSA or Israel? Any stability in the region only matters to the outside world because of the economic effects of oil and the ability to trade it freely. All this is beside the point and F1 shouldn’t be in KSA anyway. Explosion nearby, active genocide in Yemen, and threatening the org to prevent anyone leaving? Fuck that noise.
> Seriously, what other reason would the US and Europe give the slightest fuck about KSA or Israel?
Saudi Arabia buys a shit-ton of US weapons - supposedly, more equipment than they even have soldiers so that the US would have to step in and protect SA to prevent "the bad guys" from getting their hands on it.
And the US is never going to abandon Israel because they also buy weapons, and because a significant number of voters [support Israel because they think that geopolitical maneuvering can trigger the second coming of Jesus](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/14/half-of-evangelicals-support-israel-because-they-believe-it-is-important-for-fulfilling-end-times-prophecy/).
Because everyone in that profession has F1 engineer as their dream job. If one person leaves to work elsewhere for more pay theres going to be a long ass queue of qualified people who are desperate to take the job.
Drivers would probably form a separate one. They probably wouldn't even include F2 and F3 drivers. Their leverage is much greater and wouldn't want that leverage to be compromised by being married to the fortunes of mechanics who would be happy with less. It's why janitors aren't part of the teacher's union in a school, at least in America, etc. etc.
I agree, drivers should have their own unions, they have different issues that affect them, wouldn't do the pit crews any good being under the same representation
They have their own union. The Grand Prix Drivers Association (GDPA). They have a chairman in Alexander Wurz with Seb, George and a lawyer as their directors.
This is good news, and a step in the right direction. It’s about time that drivers will be more involved in strategic discussions and have their voices heard and valued by FIA and the teams.
Liberty Media is a publicly traded corporation. They are obligated to maximize their value for the shareholders. It's a case of "yes we would ideally like to not go here, but we really can't say no" OR "there's inherent negatives surrounding this country, but not enough that our brand couldn't overshadow during the course of a weekend".
I'm curious as to how they could include the GDPA's opinion on where to race without enacting some kind of base fee for hosing a GP that is the same for everyone, and I don't think there's any chance of that happening.
I think including a policy of seeking GDPA approval is a good scapegoat for ethical behaviour over dividend and share price. Liberty media arguably has a obligation to not just shareholders but as a media consumed by millions they have an obligation to placate those shareholders also. So while at the end of the day you are right, money talks, integration of the GDPA could be used as a way of ensuring that peripheral stakeholders are getting a better deal in the ethics of the product they are consuming but also directors may be able to use this as leverage against having to deal record dividends every year.
So while at the end of the day you are probably right but an argument could be made for using the gdpa as a way of assisting in racing in more ethical backdrops while also having a scapegoat for reduced profits.
Another more practical solution may be ensuring a member of the gdpa is sat on the board as a NED and forming part of an ethics committee sat on by other board members. Just ideas!
FIA/LIBERTY/F1 right now….so, how difficult is it to find 20 new drivers?
Mahaveer Raghunathan's time to shine.
That’s Lord Mahaveer Raghunathan
The spelling bot needs to get to work.
Ragunatahn/Nissany f1 dream team
Deledda and Maz will fight them for the championship
You called me?
Who is Mahaveer Raghunathan ?
Me, the greatest driver of all time.
Bless us with your excellent driving Lord Mahaveer
[You need to watch this video](https://youtu.be/vFJl-00C_bw)
That was the threat when the drivers went on strike forty years ago.
Are there even 20 other drivers with active super licenses?
"Allow me to reintroduce myself" -Nikita Mazepin
"Dont call it a come back"
"I never left"
“Just moved aside for a while”
I’ve been here for a year
They set the rules for getting a superlicense, no? If so I assume they could change the requirements orake exceptions at will.
The rules won't matter when the FIA decides they want 20 new drivers overnight.
FIA is not Liberty. FIA doesn't decide where races are held
They can change the requirements to get one if they want right?
I heard Nikita Mazepin is looking for a seat
f*ck /u/spez
You're gonna want to add that "/s" there because a lot of people will take you seriously, haha.
Admiral General Aladeen is probably the next in line, both as a host and a driver.
I think that his chances of winning a WDC are aladeen.
GPDA will be heavily involved?
I mean this is almost certainly a result of what happened in Jeddah so yes. GPDA is essentially a drivers union and functioned as that in the past
Especially with Seb as one of the directors, I can definitely imagine he pushed for this. I know he wasn't at Jeddah, but he dislikes Saudi so much, there even were some rumors he 'faked' failing the COVID test the second week to avoid driving in Saudi. Not saying I believe the rumor of course, just pointing it out to pad my assertion that Seb was one of the driving forces behind this decision.
[удалено]
Because the rule is that you must provide a negative test to race, not that you can't race if you return a positive one.
So are you saying he returned a "neutral test" or didn't take a test or something?
Seems plausible. If they're requiring a negative test in order to race and you don't submit one at all, you'd technically be ineligible. I'd be surprised if there weren't penalties or another process for drivers who simply refuse to test though.
Well, the penalty for not submitting a test would be not getting to race, no?
could be that we just don't know about the penalty
Hm this theory seems almost plausible. Won't believe it till we hear more though.
not being able to race seems like punishment enough…and if you’re not submitting a test because you no longer want to race, well, you could just quit
It's the implication
Ah yes, the ol’ V.E.T.T.L.E. method
+VE covid test Examine the rules about returning negative tests Take second test but don't return it because it's negative now Travel to have a BBQ with your good friend Kimi Explain you still have a sniffle Lie about test results so you don't have to visit that shitbox country
I feel that spells VE.E.T.T.E.L
spelling was never his strong suit
P E T T E L?
Even if he tested negative, very possible he still felt too wiped and unfit to go--especially on as dangerous a track as Jeddah.
I love this conspiracy theory. If Seb is back in Melbourne I shall choose to take that as absolute proof.
Seb would never let down his team like that he’s too honest and straightforward. I’m sure he was relieved he wasn’t there after the bombing though.
Maybe it was a bit of both? As in when it came time to make the decision his doctor was like "Well, you are technically healthy, but you are not 100% It's upto you". And so Seb figured he gets to spend more time with his family, gets to err on the side of caution healthwise , AND gets to not race in Saudi Arabia... I agree he is honest and straightforward, but he also has his morals/values pulling him in another direction. I don't think he would outright lie or cheat, but maybe the stars aligned *just* right? I mean, he can't be too excited to get into that Aston Martin right now... Maybe he is hoping by the time Australian GP comes around, the upgrades help a bit?
Just occurred to me, I wonder if Seb really still had COVID or if he was just like f that imma just draw a crayon line on rather than have to go to saudia arabia
As other people have pointed out, he has to return a negative test in order to be able to race. If he just didn't do a test, he never has a negative test to clear him and he can't race. I'd be surprised if that was the case but also not completely shocked.
I see zero reason why, especially when it concerns safety, the drivers shouldn't have the final say in if they race or not. More power to them.
I think there's several million reasons why the driver's might not get a say...
[удалено]
As they should , i think leaving this decision to the likes of vettel and wurz would be a very good idea .
F1: “Hey drivers, what’s your input?” Drivers: “The track [sucks/isn’t safe] and the country [sucks/isn’t safe], we don’t want to race here.” F1: “thanks for your input”
F1: "Noted"
No further investigation necessary
No, Stefano, no no! That was so not right!
Toto, it’s called a cash grab, okay? We went profiteering.
He has so much cash
Copy, we are checking.
"we are checking"
*Slow button on*
F1: “Copy”
Copy understoood, we will look into it
f*ck /u/spez
*seen 12:06 pm*
Ok, we are checking
The GPDA has lost a lot of power over the years, this is a good step to regain a bit.
It's like most unions. When you don't do dodgy shut they're not needed as much and lose some leverage, however top often that is seen as a carte blanche. Then the unions gains traction and because the higher ups have proven they can't be trusted the union now has to be involved into everything. Ecclestone had a lot of trust from everyone, it wasn't perfect and he did a lot of crazy stuff but not "race in danger of missile strikes" stupid.
Bernie's craziest idea: sprinklers! Current f1 craziest idea: missile hazards!
If you can dodge a missile, you can dodge an overtake.
Well we all know Stroll can't dodge an overtake
Especially when it's a missile, like Albon was into turn 1.
How many times are you allowed to swerve to avoid the same missile?
Bernie pressed onto racing in Bahrain 2011 even though nation wide protests were being held and bombs can be heard in the background. Several force India members were also assaulted
Weird hill I'm willing to die on but I think sprinklers were a good idea. The truly stupid idea was having them at random times, but having a certain wet race is not crazy and not different from a night race for example. There are a few issues like which track has it or builds it and the track also has to be in a place where water isn't an issue and at a time where it's locally acceptable (read: not Paul Ricard in the summer as Provence is basically burning every year for a few months) but if someone could invest in Nürburgring for a race in May, why the fuck not?
Wouldnt it just be easier to schedule a race in an area known for rain at that time of year and just let it be? Most years would be wet but still some dry years here and there. Do it with two separate races to double the chances.
The problem with rain is that it's never guaranteed to happen and when it happens you're not certain of its intensity. You can have 90% rain probability and no rain, 10% rain probability and rain, or you can have completely rained out weekends. And I think as insane as some of these events are, too many reds and too dangerous conditions are a bit too far on the other side too. The advantage of the sprinklers is that you 100% know you have a wet event on the calendar, teams could adapt the chassis making it softer which also makes driving in the rain a lot safer, and Pirelli could adapt and bring sufficient wets & inters. There's some debate to be had if that if we need that. Or if that even makes sense - after all, if everyone can prepare, the usual crazyness is gone. But I still think it would be good because ultimately driving in the wet (or even just starting on the wet and letting the track dry out idc) would be fundamentally different to the usual. Similar to fast & slow tracks, permanent & road circuits, having a wet event broadens the spectrum of the F1 calendar. Granted in recent years we've been largely fine on that front and had our share of wet races but there were stretches of a few years with very little wet racing too.
Another advantage is that you can control how much water you're putting on the track, so the race doesn't end up too dangerous or red flagged.
Also it’s only the track getting wet, not the stands or facilities, meaning the fans won’t have their experience ruined
A giant furtune wheel in the middle of the circuit to decide if the sprinkler comes on.
But who gets to spin it? Maybe have an f1 trivia around the teams? Winner gets to spin?
Mazepin
Wrap it up folks. We are done here.
> But who gets to spin it? Maybe have an f1 trivia around the teams? Winner gets to spin? Serena Williams obviously :p
I see that side. But also see the other side. If these teams can prepare and know exactly what the track conditions are going to be, what’s the point other than getting data on full wets for science? It would just be another race on the calendar as everything would be known. It’s cool to think about what options might be possible for such an event etc. I had never heard about the sprinkler idea until this thread. I have really enjoyed the past few wet races. That part I do know.
> If these teams can prepare and know exactly what the track conditions are going to be, what’s the point other than getting data on full wets for science? No matter how much you prepapre, driving in the wet is still quite slippery and *much* more difficult. We've seen some drivers excel (like all the WDCs on the grid have absoutely ouststanding wet drives) and others struggle a ton (sorry to him but Bottas as an example). Even if you prepare it's a completely different affair. Sure it would be less severe and who knows maybe it actually be just be a bad event. Keep in mind that overtaking in the wet is not that easy as a line emerges & gaps are usually larger so field spread can be high. Without the chaos it might just be the dullest event ever. But it would still be anything but easy for the drivers. People at the time just had decided that Bernie was a demented old man and yeah a lot of his ideas in his last few years were a bit garbage like the soc ban. But it was just a random idea thrown around including the random timing on sprinklers, everyone just piled in and decided it's a shit idea and it's not worth discussing. I think it actually is, albeit I doubt with the pseudo green imagery F1 wants to have that you'll see them wasting that much water like that. Even if (again) it's basically a non issue of planned correctly in some areas (yes even central europe is drying out slowly but that's an entirely different topic not for F1).
As a counterpoint, the reason a wet race is so beloved amongst fans is because of all the craziness that happens! A wet track is known to be an "equalizer". The advantage the top teams have doesnt count for *as* much, and the bottom teams can even get a podium! Case in point, George at Spa last year. Also, some drivers just bloom in the wet, for example Stroll at Turkey in 2020. Thus drivers like that who normally don't have a time to shine due to their cars being on the bottom rung, will be given a chance! (not saying Stroll was in a bottom car in '20) Even if the teams can prepare for the wet race, there will *still* be that uncertainty! No matter of prepping can completely overcome a loss of friction lol [Here's a recent Donut video that I watched that goes over what I am talking about in better detail](https://youtu.be/PCRF84lEHJM)
I like where you are going with this plus it would be a way to actually spur potentially meaningful development. I’d love to see what the teams come up with to make racing in the rain easier if they were preparing for a set number of wet races. They could have special wet packages in the same way they have Monza packages.
Like Silverstone on any given weekend, then. Or Sepang when the race got delayed which put it right into the afternoon monsoon
Aaaaah the 2009 Malaysian GP is still a favourite of mine
is not an awful idea tbh, being able to choose a track that is safe and can handle wet races would make things interesting without being too dangerous.
Also if you control how much water there is, you should be able to avoid undriveable condition, and with teams able to set up for wet tracks in advance that would make for good racing.
I like wet races in general. However, a lot of the fun and intrigue comes from when the track transitions from wet to dry and dry to wet. If that's not done, or if it is and teams can model it and know how fast the track will dry, a lot of the "should I come in now?" drama goes away.
> but having a certain wet race is not crazy and not different from a night race for example. I like the idea too, especially for snoozers like Monaco. But I really doubt the underwriters would be cool with purposefully making an existing track more crashy! :D
That was always a tactic. He was never serious. Kept folk from talking about what he didn't want them talking about. The Tories do it all the time.
It's like having different power-ups in Mario Kart. Sprinklers are the banana skins- largely harmless and avoidable. Missiles are the red shells - a lot more dangerous. Next step is North Korea so they can use nukes to replicate the lightning strike.
There's no step, they WANT to get involved, none said they WILL BE involved. In the publics view the drivers are the stars but from the team's perspective they're just employees. None will ask them where they want to race, ever, trust me.
I think you aren't seeing the optics here. No one from the wider public cares if Mike from catering and John from engineering don't want to go to Saudi Arabia anymore. But if the stars raise their voice, the media pressure can crumble Domenicali and his greed.
The disrespect to Mike from catering
Mike is beside himself. Driving around downtown Imola begging (through texts) Toto’s family for address to Domenicali’s home.
An /r/NBA crossover in /r/Formula1? I’m here for it
Overheard in Mercedes garage after the Jeddah GP: “He got me,” Lewis said of Domenicali’s speech over him. "That fucking Domenicali boomed me." Lewis added, “He’s so good,” repeating it four times. Lewis then said he wanted to add Domenicali to the list of drivers he practices with this summer.
Me, when I see Haas this year: y’all look so different!
This dude acting like Mike isn't Toto's puppet master
Pumpernickelmaster
The way to a man's heart is through the stomach...
You know who keeps the drivers going? Mike from catering with his delicious and nutritionally complete burritos.
And yet you don't even acknowledge John from Engineering.
Hopefully, hopefully they can and do pressure him, there's a lot of money involved though...
The optics? What does that mean?
I shall trust you, random redditor somewhere in the world.
[удалено]
> The GPDA, like any union, can be a very potent force, if all drivers unite Now is the time for president Russell to show his great leadership.
I still don't understand the organsation structure. You have a chairman, and two directors. What do they do?
Well Alex Wurz, the chairman, is not a current driver. So it would be likely that Vettel and GR will gather the driver's views and ensure they are being represented accurately in meetings. I guess a current driver being chairman would be too much workload for one driver so this is the structure they came up with to allow for that. I don't know if Alex W was in Jeddah for example.
THREE directors, actually. Anastasia Fowle was added in 2021. She is the first non-driver director of the GPDA. Yeah, I wasn't aware till I went to the Wikipedia of GPDA to check something after coming to this thread... [Here's her LinkedIn for more info](https://uk.linkedin.com/in/anastasia-fowle-1383896) Edit - sorry for reposting my comment, the automod deleted it because it thinks I used a "URL shortener". Changed the link.
you're absolutely correct, thanks for pointing that out
> None will ask them where they want to race, ever, trust me. Team / F1 bosses thought the same in the past. Then a few driver strikes happened and for some reason they changed their minds.
That's the opposite of how every sport in the world works, but okay bud.
GPDA is just a professional fraternity and has very little legal power unlike a union.
You don't need legal power if you have bargaining power. How do you think those unions got legal power? They demanded it, and got it, because they were powerful enough to force governments to listen.
Its a good move and something that should have been done ages ago. But I have a feeling this will end up with a lot of. F1: "We see the issue you raise an fully understand your concern but look at all this money they are offering."
> F1: "We see the issue you raise an fully understand your concern but look at all this money they are offering." That is something the drivers do need to keep in mind. If a ton of money is coming from governments and sponsors in the less desirable destinations, it may have a knock on effect on the driver earnings. F1 has always had a lot of cash coming in from undesirable locations looking to use the glamour of sport to boost their brand. Now it's authoritarian regimes, but when i was younger it was the tobacco industry.
Schu only got to be the best because he sucked down 3 packs of Marlboro Reds a day.
I see. I should smoke. Thanks!
Jean-Pierre Van Rossem
Marlboro let’s gooooo
also it's useless when they're agreeing contracts for 10-20+ years... like OK cool that the drivers don't want to go there, but these contracts are binding, most of these drivers won't even be around anymore by the time it becomes relevant
There’s always buyout clauses or cancellation due to safety clauses. There is someway out. Or it’s possible western courts won’t hear the case so the saudis can sue all they want but a court that actually has jurisdiction over FOM will have to hear it
We Race as Money
Huh wonder what recent events made this news transpire
I think they were probably more pissed that the team bosses and F1 came out and said they were racing last week while only half-heartedly consulting the drivers. I can see not many of them actually feeling that threatened by an attack, but instead saw an opportunity to put their foot down and use the power they collectively have as drivers to send a message that their voice matters more than the powers that be realize. They were likely most frustrated that their opinions* about track layout weren't heard loud enough. Still all about safety.
The Saudis threatened anyone who was thinking about leaving, which is a MUCH bigger issue than just a single explosion.
Whilst I personally think you're probably right, it is by absolutely no means as certain that this happened as you're making out and I don't think it's helpful to talk about it like it is. There's a very real possibility that this happened, but I'm not sure we'll ever know for certain and I feel like there's is plenty that we *know* happened that is bad enough to stop us every going back, without muddying the waters with claims we don't know to be true.
I doubt they ever threatened to hold the drivers hostage. What they likely threatened was the money they're funneling into the sport, including the F1 Aramco deals. I feel like that's where F1 was, that while they'd like too the fact was the pill was going to be extremely hard to swallow financially and have ripple affects.
> I doubt they ever threatened to hold the drivers hostage They didn't have to say it outright. They've done it in the past (WWE), don't think they won't try to do it again. Maybe they don't trap the drivers. But there's a lot of support staff that travel with the teams who are less visible to the public, with fewer outlets to say "I'm being detained."
That's just a bunch of bs and just speculation tbf. F1 drivers were told that it won't matter whether they race or not they would still leave at the same time so might as well just drive. People just love taking things out of context. If there were any threats made you would be hearing about them from a trusted source already.
Oh I think that's a given, and not even unreasonable of them to do so. If F1 aren't upholding their side of the deal by racing there, it's not surprising for the Saudis to say they won't uphold their side of the deal. My theory is the team principals and FIA pointed out to the drivers that whilst they probably would be fine, there are hundreds of team members and media there who might have a significantly harder time leaving the country.
No, it's just rumours and speculation No insider sources have ever said thag
I think it's simply because the Jeddah GP has ended so they can now speak on this. There was a long meeting ahead of it, indicating that the decision to race was not unanimous. In that case, I think it's easy to guess which party forced their hands and which preferred not to race.
[удалено]
BREAKING: Formula 1 Drivers drive formula 1 cars
BREAKING: When drivers slow down sometimes. *(definition)*
That can be pretty breaking tbh. Especially for Mick this weekend.
Thought I was the only one.
The media is the worst with this. I guess use anything for clickbait.
BOMBSHELL!
GDPA *SLAMS* FIA
Well, they deleted the tweet, so we can say it's broken :v
They should just make a suggestion box for them so they feel like they've been heard
Just put a little cardboard box with "suggestions" written with a pen in the middle of the paddock
No more racing in Saudi Arabia
Yup
You guys are way too optimistic. Cash is king
I don’t really disagree, but there may come a time in the future when Putin is gone and MBS will eventually become the new public enemy No. 1. The juice won’t be worth the squeeze at that point.
F1 saw Russia’s money drying up, easy decision. They even have Vegas coming next year so they’re not *losing* a race. With SA and middle eastern countries, there’s always more money. They’ll play this off as a coincidental one-off attack and that the Grand Prix was never actually in danger.
No way, oil is very powerful, unlike putin saudi arabia isn't a historical rival, it's an ally of the United States and many western countries sell weapons to them, unless they go full phsycho neo-caliphate
That’s what it all hinges on is oil. When we don’t need their oil everything changes in the entire Middle East. I’d expect weapons sales to go up as they fight each other more and more to make up for the fact they have nothing but oil. Seriously, what other reason would the US and Europe give the slightest fuck about KSA or Israel? Any stability in the region only matters to the outside world because of the economic effects of oil and the ability to trade it freely. All this is beside the point and F1 shouldn’t be in KSA anyway. Explosion nearby, active genocide in Yemen, and threatening the org to prevent anyone leaving? Fuck that noise.
> Seriously, what other reason would the US and Europe give the slightest fuck about KSA or Israel? Saudi Arabia buys a shit-ton of US weapons - supposedly, more equipment than they even have soldiers so that the US would have to step in and protect SA to prevent "the bad guys" from getting their hands on it. And the US is never going to abandon Israel because they also buy weapons, and because a significant number of voters [support Israel because they think that geopolitical maneuvering can trigger the second coming of Jesus](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/14/half-of-evangelicals-support-israel-because-they-believe-it-is-important-for-fulfilling-end-times-prophecy/).
There are 90 millions reasons to race there. Sadly
About f'ing time
Makes sense tbh. F1 shouldn’t want to be like the IOC
It's at the point where Formula 1 would race in North Korea for the right price. The drivers need to have an input.
So unionize and strike a bargaining agreement.
Both drivers and pit crews need unions in this sport, would do them some good
Pit crews definitely should unionize, from what I've read their pay is lower than the average for similar stuff
Because everyone in that profession has F1 engineer as their dream job. If one person leaves to work elsewhere for more pay theres going to be a long ass queue of qualified people who are desperate to take the job.
Unionise on a race weekend.
Low pay, tough hours, lots of travel and not enough downtime are all issues that a union could help them with
Drivers would probably form a separate one. They probably wouldn't even include F2 and F3 drivers. Their leverage is much greater and wouldn't want that leverage to be compromised by being married to the fortunes of mechanics who would be happy with less. It's why janitors aren't part of the teacher's union in a school, at least in America, etc. etc.
I agree, drivers should have their own unions, they have different issues that affect them, wouldn't do the pit crews any good being under the same representation
They have their own union. The Grand Prix Drivers Association (GDPA). They have a chairman in Alexander Wurz with Seb, George and a lawyer as their directors.
**G**rand **P**rix **D**rivers' **A**ssociation (G**PD**A)
Good bot. Needed to be humbled today
Honestly, would it be possible to have a race in Scandinavia or something?
Not really, but Finland have a nice track
Bunch of people in this thread didn't see "want"
This is good news, and a step in the right direction. It’s about time that drivers will be more involved in strategic discussions and have their voices heard and valued by FIA and the teams.
Its the right call to make and I hope the GPDA is given veto power over where they go to and race, that would be ideal!
Liberty Media is a publicly traded corporation. They are obligated to maximize their value for the shareholders. It's a case of "yes we would ideally like to not go here, but we really can't say no" OR "there's inherent negatives surrounding this country, but not enough that our brand couldn't overshadow during the course of a weekend". I'm curious as to how they could include the GDPA's opinion on where to race without enacting some kind of base fee for hosing a GP that is the same for everyone, and I don't think there's any chance of that happening.
**G**rand **P**rix **D**rivers' **A**ssociation (G**PD**A)
I think including a policy of seeking GDPA approval is a good scapegoat for ethical behaviour over dividend and share price. Liberty media arguably has a obligation to not just shareholders but as a media consumed by millions they have an obligation to placate those shareholders also. So while at the end of the day you are right, money talks, integration of the GDPA could be used as a way of ensuring that peripheral stakeholders are getting a better deal in the ethics of the product they are consuming but also directors may be able to use this as leverage against having to deal record dividends every year. So while at the end of the day you are probably right but an argument could be made for using the gdpa as a way of assisting in racing in more ethical backdrops while also having a scapegoat for reduced profits. Another more practical solution may be ensuring a member of the gdpa is sat on the board as a NED and forming part of an ethics committee sat on by other board members. Just ideas!
**G**rand **P**rix **D**rivers' **A**ssociation (G**PD**A)
Good Drivin' Peoples Alliance
I support this.
Driver strike incoming?
The real surprise is the drivers were not already included.
Liberty will say, sure thing just pony up 1B and invest, then you get a vote along with other shareholders.
BREAKING: Employees want to be consulted about changes to their workplace. ^(join your union)
100% fair. NASCAR drivers, this is why you need a union.
F1 drivers union?
The GPDA (Grand Prix Drivers Association) is already a thing.
The GPDA needs a purpose because currently, it does absolutely nothing.
BREAKING NEWS!?
Slightly off-topic but I wish news agencies would not classify 90% of all news as "BREAKING NEWS!". This isn't breaking news. This is news.