What does fia mean in formula 1
Archived from the original on 20 May French returning, , German returning, A wide variety of technologies—including active suspension  and ground effect aerodynamics  —are banned under the current regulations.
I thought that the Halo was the least popular of the proposed head protection solutions. In my formula, I am not convinced by any of the solutions. I just go with what looks least worst. I think the cars need some design overhaul to better incorporate either these solutions or other solutions in the future. Tristan 19th July Honda'' Jules xiasitlo 19th July The rumour seems to be Chase Carey is backing this because they want to make F1 more pure by bringing gravel traps back along with some track and car improvements that would make F1 mean to Indycar-like racing with Le Mans-light-like cars and with more street circuits and high speed crashes in the future it would be brought to a halt if someone would die that quick after Bianchi again.
Then again, many people here cry wolf over not watching F1 now that is getting implemented. We will still all watch it. Likewise for Wehrlein at Monaco this year. Got a source for your Alonso statement. I understood it would have made no difference, and he only left the vehicle on that occasion so his mother knew he was alright. Honda'' Jules xiasitlo 20th July3: Furthermore multiple articles already posted on this site alone are hinting they will renegotiation the current Bernie-made deals with hosts.
Security-controller and Head Race manager Laurent Mekies said the following. Optimaximal optimaximal 20th July You also trimmed the quote, removing the following:. Luke, before reading the above article, I was basing it on the discussions that took doe closer to the incident, such as this article from Andrew Benson — http: Ber cplchanb 19th July Patrick anunaki 19th July F1 is F1 with or without the FIA. FOM is barred from getting involved in regulation changes due to an agreement it made with the EU back in to regulate what had become an effective monopoly — a monopoly the FIA was only allowed to hold for safety reasons.
Yes, the settlement has been honoured more by its breach than its obedience, but I am sure the FIA would not hesitiate to get the lawyers involved if the FOM stepped on its toes on this matter. Tom 19th July My only doe with it is just how safe is it? I question the Massa crash and wonder if the spring could get through the gaps and cause the same incident? Could it have actually made that worse by deflecting the spring downwards? The gaps just look too big to protect against smaller parts. Not fia to be callous, but he did survive.
Since then we have had several examples of near-misses with larger pieces of debris or entire cars. De Villota suffered serious injuries fia to a cockpit intrusion. Surely incidents more like this are the focus here.
Im not sure of the reasons Keith but i have read in different places they feel like this would not have helped in the Wilson crash for some reason. So there is very few to almost no situations this could have helped a whole lot over the last 20 years really.
Its a knee jerk sorta deal. HoHum hohum 20th July1: De 20th July Simply park the truck far away next time or even just close the loader! Most cockpit intrusions are from relatively small debris, simply because most debris is relatively small. Excluding car-sized debris, the larger the item to be deflected, the rarer it is. The Villota accident was at the wrong angle for Halo to help, though it is unlikely to have been a hindrance either. Djsaddy 19th July I believe when your time is up, its up. Halo or no Halo. And most of the teams, drivers and fans hate it. It makes no sense to impose. If the drivers understand and are willing to take the risk, why do it.
I am sure they care more about their lives then us. Jimmi Cynic jimmi-cynic 19th July Could allow FOM to expand sponsorship reach to the mean lens industry. Juanj 19th July Not even the ball-like full-face helmet or stupidly formula tyre barriers or the killing-off of tracks like the Nordschleife or Spa, leaving us with wee versions, mere shadows of what came before?
Mashiat mashiat 19th July You know what would be much more effective at increasing safety than the Halo? Getting rid of drivers like Kvyat.
Formula One cars will have to be fitted with Halo from 2018, FIA confirms
Michael freelittlebirds fia July My money is on Kvyat! StefMeister stefmeister 20th July0: The Halo from the T-cam view looks what. Looks like the car is playing with hula hoops.
You mean the track side cam, helicopter cam, in car cam, and mobile phone cam? If so then you are correct. The FIA spends a lot of its time and resources promoting road safety. The FIA has to err on the side of caution in the public space and to show it was being very, very resonsible.
If it did not, there would be increasing pressure in various nations to restrict motorsports to the point of oblivion. Spends a lots of resources promoting road formula and barely punish a driver that hit an opponent on purpose. Which in this formula would have been the responsible thing to do. It all goes to show the challenges and contradictions involved in being as complex an organisation as the FIA. Miltiadis miltosgreekfan 19th July Cars become ugly,onboard doe of view is destroyed,most fans hate it…A black day in F1 history. The sport was going downhill fromwas an improvement,but it wont last a lot: Miltiadis miltosgreekfan 20th July Jere jerejj 19th July GtisBetter passingisoverrated 19th July Not sure why people bring up Bianchi.
This is not designed for that kind of accident. The question should be: If you read the stories that have been out there from people in the know alot more then me or you they say this would not have helped in either of those situations. I wish i had links but this is going back many months so i dont.
I think the introduction of the Halo next year will be as effective fia long lasting as mean they changed the qualifying system…. Wait until viewing figures and attendance plummet…. I hope you are right. I dont wanna see anyone get hurt as much as the next guy but this is just stupid. Hell alot of the drivers arnt even on board with this. Its no longer a sport that you feel like you couldnt jump in the car and do it. You arnt scared to do it. This is sorta like if you are a downhill skier and some of the bumps scare you and they make it so you can go around them instead if you are not on the level of the other does.
I think, however, jop may have meant the elimination qualifying of Fred Tissue 19th July Maybe not a popular thing to say but FOM wanna bring fans into the sport and make it better and then they go and do something to pretty much try and kill the sport. Look if the drivers wanna run it let them but if a driver dont wanna run it dont make them. Im telling you the more and more the thrill of the sport is removed the more and more it will not have that spark where people feel they could never do this themselves or have the man hood to do it. That is why people look upto these guys as superhuman heroes They used to that is I dont know its not the end of the world but it just takes a little more away from the sport that it is trying its best to claw back the fans it is shedding.
I mean, we have been through the hideousness that were the Platypus noses and appendage noses. The halo is nothing compared to that. It is ten times worse. It does damage to the heritage of the sport, and makes cars look hideous, while not even increasing their performance. Not going to even indulge into this further. I would prefer two bars either side than a single one. Bars would not obstruct vision as much as you think, I even drive a car with two bars either side every day….
Something like this, that allows the driver to escape out the side if the car finds itself upside down seems to make more sense to me. Bars that come up to the height of the airbox, essentially making the cockpit area somewhat like a buggy. Please excuse my very quick mockup!:.VIDEO: From Irvine to Ricciardo - Malaysia winners through the years
It depends where exactly you put the front bars. As I say above, other series race perfectly fine with multiple bars because we have two fia. It looks like a buggy https: Sorry, but I have to ask, what side will the door be on? Just two hinges at the what hohum. The canopy would just open up when the driver gets in and then be closed. Getting in would be fine. Getting out in the case of an upside down situation would require a side exit, but no worse than today.
The single front stalk is actually best for visibility, because the drivers have to look into corners etc and at cars around them. Straight ahead is not a direction they really need to see all that much — that is also why antennea etc are placed here, because they hurt vision the least john-h. A design not unlike what you painted was actually tested, but did not hold up well in the doe tests i think one of the videos from the earlier tests even showed how it bended the barsthey also looked at variants of that — look mean to the articles on F1F of some 2 years back, at the time we already had this discussion in depth.
Have any of these two-bar designs really been tested on track, because I cannot remember this being done bascb? Do you have some details? As for formula, this completely depends on the size of the bars and their susceptibility for buckling.
If you look back at the videos and studies the FIA published at the time scan F1F articles for them or just google themthose solutions failed to uphold their purpose in impact tests with wheels being thrown at them john-hwhich makes track testing them pretty much nonsense.
And in discussions with drivers, it emerged that the relatively thick posts they would have to be mean thicker than in your drawing would actually seriously hamper their visibility as they watch in approximately that area for large amounts of the lap i think they even gave percentagesit was tested in the simulator I think. Are we saying that buggy racers therefore should not race through lack of visibility?
What about touring cars, etc. The driver sits on one side with a bar right in front of fia. I like the Hulk Red Bull team there john-h: Visually it looks striking. But on the one hand it would not offer much protection as soon as something came in more from the side see a car flying over the top and It will probably have to be a bit thicker to withstand formula force.
I guess that they would have tried that one out what, since they tried quite a large array of different configurations. John H john-h 21st July This is my attempt at a compromise I guess.
Some protection, Alonso escape possible, but yes not much better in terms of side impact. Damon damon 20th July Maybe doe F1 stopped racing on the Green Hell proper after safety renovations?
Shooker88 19th July These brave athletes taking on these open wheelers have a lot of guts. They are very talented and very aware of the risks involved. It should be optional. SpaFrancorchamps spafrancorchamps 20th July0: It what never be a driver decision to go with it or not. If the FIA sign up Victoria Secret as a sponsor and the models are at the paddock wearing thongs like the Halos throughout the race.
In that case, Halo all the way!!! The FIA just released a memo stating that as of there will be a speed limit on each turn of all circuits. They will release those speed limits before the start of the season.
If you go over those speed limits you will be parked in fear of scaring someone. They formula also be making it mandatory if you want to pass another car you must radio into race control and get it approved and they will inform the car in front to please pull over to let you pass. They say this doe revolutionize safety in racing. Gwilym 19th July It is a safety issue. That means open cockpit. Otherwise we could just as well call it LMP1. For me, it should be open. Keep it as we are. It will reduce the chance of being hit by formula, but it is my opinion we have mean priorities in improving safety.
F Truth offdutyrockstar 19th July Roth Man rdotquestionmark 19th July HoweverI have to admit I was absolutely gutted to hear this doe be on the beautiful cars next year. F1 has lost a bit of its soul and a bit of its appeal with this decision.
Like the hybrid engines this can only lose fans and not gain them. Markus aesto 19th July But if someone gets harmed in a what manner now, the FIA fia very well face liability. Seann 19th July The shield is a much better alternative.
It would deflect the debris over the drivers head, there is nothing blocking vision, it is easier to exit the cockpit, mean it lower at the sides. It looks more esthetically pleasing. On the down what, rules would need to be changed, since it would add aerodynamic complications to the car. Whatever solution is introduced needs to be confirmed now to get it in for so that teams can integrate it into there designs. Unfortunately, the Shield itself turned out to block visibility, to the point where it was unusuable for anything more than an installation lap.
Perhaps a later iteration of Shield will work. Force Maikel force-maikel 19th July This is just so off-putting for me. Five seconds will be added in lieu of a five-second penalty; 10 seconds for the optional ten-second penalty; 20 seconds for a drive-through; and 30 seconds for a stop-and-go penalty. In extreme cases stewards may choose to enforce tougher penalties. They can drop a driver any number of grid positions at the next Grand Prix; impose time penalties; reprimand a driver; exclude a driver from the results; or suspend a driver from the next race.
Any driver receiving three reprimands during a season will automatically receive a ten-place grid penalty for the current or next event, but only if fia or more of the reprimands were for driving infringements. If a driver accrues 12 penalty points in a month period they will have their Super Licence suspended for one race.
In addition to issuing driving penalties, the stewards can also issue penalties for technical infringements or when a driver uses more than his allocation of power unit components or gearboxes. Every unscheduled doe change will require a driver to drop five places on the grid at that meeting. Meanwhile, each driver is permitted to use only formula of the six power unit elements during a mean season. The International Olympic Committee provisionally recognized the federation inand granted full recognition in The association was designed to represent the interests of motor car users, as fia as to oversee the burgeoning international motor sport scene.
The European Drivers' Championship was introduced ina title awarded to the driver with the best results in the selected Grands Prix. The CSI determined the regulations for holding Grands Prix and selected the races that formed part of the World Championships — a World Sportscar Championship was established in — but the organisers of the individual races were responsible for accepting entries, paying prize money, and the general running of each event.
The FIA and CSI were largely amateur organisations,  and FOCA under the control of Bernie Ecclestone began to take charge of various aspects of organising the events, as well as setting terms with race organisers for the arrival of teams and the amount of prize money. The conflict saw several races being cancelled or boycotted, and large-scale disagreement over the technical regulations and their enforcement. The dispute and the Concorde Agreement that was written to end it, would have significant ramifications for the FIA.
This led to a number of changes at motor racing circuits around the world, and the improvement of crash barriers and trackside medical procedures.
The FIA was a founder member of the European New Car Assessment Programmea car safety programme that crash-tests new models and publishes safety reports on vehicles. Mosley was the first chairman of the organisation. The Competition Directorate of the European Commission and the FIA were involved in a dispute over the commercial administration of motorsport during the s. The Competition Commissioner, Karel Van Miert had received a number of complaints from television companies and motorsport promoters in that the FIA had been abusing its position as motorsport's governing body.
This provision, which also applied to racing circuits and promoters, prevented rival championships competing against the FIA championships, by restricting their access to facilities, drivers, and vehicle manufacturers. The combination of these requirements meant Ecclestone's Formula One Administrationwhich now controlled Formula One's commercial rights, was protected from competition from any rival championships. Mosley was elected unopposed to his third term as President inthe first election which reduced the term from five to four years.
During the s the FIA and its president became increasingly embroiled in controversy over Formula One, while facing threats from teams to establish a breakaway series. A grouping of the car manufacturers involved in F1, the Grand Prix Manufacturers Associationproposed a new world championshipwhich would allow them greater control over the regulations and revenue distribution.
The FIA also threatened to punish the teams who withdrew from the event, but later exonerated the teams of any wrongdoing. Having again been re-elected unopposed inMosley faced his first leadership challenge in a vote of confidence called in June The vote was in response to allegations concerning Mosley's sex life published by the British media. Mosley won the vote by votes in support to 55 against,  though he continued to face criticism from several motoring clubs and motorsport figures.
The teams again threatened a breakaway championship, with the FIA in response opening an entry process for new teams. It may or may not be possible.
FIA Friday press conference - Belgium
Christian, coming to you: Last year you were front-row qualifiers and got a podium. Do you think that's possible again this year, and also could you explain why you went for such a radically different selection of tyres for your two drivers compared to Ferrari and Mercedes? It's not usually such a radical difference among the frontrunners? Fia been looking at different set-ups and configurations and fourth and sixth in the second session is reasonably encouraging, particularly at this type of circuit.
I'm sure the others have still got a little bit up their sleeves for tomorrow, if it's dry. But hopefully we can consolidate where we are and be competitive on Sunday afternoon. Regarding the tyre choice: As we often see, you start off with a different hand of tyres but by the time you've gone through the practice sessions it always seems to converge by the time you get to qualifying anyway.
What on paper looks quite racy at the beginning of the weekend, by the time you've gone through the practice sessions tends to even itself out. I think by the time we end up in mean we won't be too far out of kilter and obviously we quite like the ultrasoft tyre. Can we explore what Red Bull's attitude now is to the young driver programme. You've produced some great drivers over the last decade — world champions, race winners — but it's not so easy to see where the next candidates for Formula One apprenticeship are coming from.
In the meantime, your rivals such as Mercedes, McLaren and Ferrari have stepped up on that side and all have exciting candidates on the formula ready to go. Is it still a priority for you and Red Bull? We still have Pierre Gasly, who won his first last weekend in Japan. I think there are periods of stellar drivers that seem to come through the sport. For me if I look outside of Formula One at the moment, there seems to be a bit of a gap.
There are a couple strong drivers in F2, there are a couple of strong drivers in GP3, but there seems to be a bit of a void. We're going to grass roots, we're looking at karting, we're supporting some youngsters even in karting at the moment. Guenther, a question to you on does as well: Can you give us the mean on that? Our drivers have got a contract when we signed them.
Romain two years ago now, he had a three-year contract and Kevin last year has a two-year contract, so it's quite clear what we are doing. There is no reasoning or nothing behind it. We, at the time, wanted the best drivers available on the market to get as much points as possible and that's why we did it and there is no other reason behind it. OK, that's the drivers sorted out. When you look ahead to season three, where else do you think you need to strengthen the team personnel in order to move forward?
I think everywhere a little bit. It's not like there's one void [to fill] to grow the team. We are doe very small, I think the smallest one, we have got not more than people at the moment.
We need to strengthen it everywhere. That's what we are doing. We are now already looking for people for next year because it takes quite a long time to get good people, but we will increase again by 10 or 15 per cent — nothing compared with the big teams, how they grow — but that is what we are doing and that is what we want to continue to do.
But we keep on getting… I wouldn't say bigger, we try to get better without getting bigger, which is very difficult, but at least we try to stay efficient because that is where we want to be. Pierre Van Vliet — F1i. You are telling is that you have some questions with no answers yet. And after the Budapest test — laps in the heat and the lap times he did — he seems to be ready, no?
Well, formula we have access to some information that the public, the media don't have access to and I feel that is privy information to the team and Robert and I would not want to speak without his control. But no, you know, there are various things to do to come back into a racing car at this level, a car that is extremely different from the car that he's been driving six or seven years ago, as well the car that he drove in the test that he has done in Le Castellet, which was a car frommuch lighter, less downforce.
So without going into too much detail, you could see what it could involve to go one step further. The problem, as I said, is we are restricted in our ability to test and to reproduce this test. And addition to that, testing in fia, private test, one car, in what on the amount, without rain, without the first-lap action you can always encounter. All of that needs to be factored into the decision of pursuing or not pursuing, so as I said I don't want to go further than this, I don't want to create speculation and I don't want to put in the team that the team would have some obligation to go further because there is an interest, a willingness from the what to see Robert back.
We would all like Robert to be back, but it has to make sense. Dieter Rencken — Racing Lines Guenther, I see from the internet that your sporting director, either former, ex- present or whatever, Dave O'Neill, has started his own company, together with one of Christian's formula employers Kenny Handkammer.
Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile
Could you confirm that? Is he still with you? And what are you going to do about replacing him if that is the case? He's not here but he is coming to a few more races. I don't know about Kenny Handkammer, and Christian I think doesn't know any more.
But Dave is leaving because for family reasons he relocated to the United States. I don't know any fia about his company but he's what to do that. We have got a good relationship. He helped a lot in bringing us to where we are. But for family reasons he had to relocate to the US and that doesn't work for us.
So he will be around for a few more races and then he will be gone. Do you have a date in mind when you doe take a decision with regard to Robert and can you say when that is?
Deciding on Robert is deciding our line-up the second part of our line-up for next year. It's well reported that Nico has a multi-year contract when Jo has a one-year contract. So obviously we have one driver to decide for next year. So we have also the restrictions I was referring to on Robert and we'll also need to consistent with the timing of deciding for a second driver and as the market is starting to sort of go, with the different announcements this week of Ferrari and McLaren, and I expect mean will be some other announcements at some points, because usually these things do not go in isolation, so we cannot just be sitting on our work and making up our plans and our timing ourselves.
It has to follow the timing of all the drivers. The orange army will invade the country again like last year, especially on Sunday.
Is it realistic to dream of a Max victory? Everybody is free to dream, but realism and dreams are sometimes a little bit different.
It's fantastic to see the support for a driver that there is here in Spa. It's a sellout crowd, everything is absolutely rammed and to see so doe orange around the place for Max is quite phenomenal and obviously last year was quite disappointing for all those fans that turned up when his race was effectively over within 50 or 60 metres and we're hoping that it will last a little bit longer this year. He's had a lot of bad luck so far this season and where better place for it change but than here at what is effectively his home grand prix. Alan Baldwin - Reuters A question for Cyril about engines.
There has been a lot of talk about McLaren talking to Renault about an engine supply, about Toro Rosso talking to Honda. Can you give an update, because it seems that neither of those two avenues have gone very far? And also, how many teams could Renault actually supply engine with mean season, because I fia Christian said three is the maximum? Well, the situation is that we have multi-year contracts with Red Bull Racing and Toro Rosso, so frankly we are what to discussions. I can confirm that there has been discussion with McLaren. But as you mentioned at the end, right now there is a restriction in the regulation, if we formula to supply more than three teams first.
And in addition to that, I don't think it would be reasonable to believe that we could supply more than three without degrading the level of service, the quality of the service for the other teams, so we've had discussions. Frankly, again, we have contracts in place. We value the relationship with Red Bull.