05/07/2005
NEWS STORY
 |
Although the war of words between the teams, Michelin and the FIA appears to have been (temporarily) put on the back burner, a new force has entered the political arena of contemporary Formula One, the Grand Prix Drivers' Association (GPDA).
Last Wednesday (June 29) the GPDA entered the great (on-going) debate over the United States Grand Prix, when 19 race drivers and third drivers issued a statement regarding safety at Indianapolis and their desire to find a solution that would have allowed them to race. The statement was made available for download via the Renault team's website.
Over the course of the French GP weekend the GPDA took the spotlight. First there was clear dissent at the fact that of the current F1 drivers, four names were missing from the post-US GP statement, most notably the two Ferrari drivers.
When asked why he hadn't signed, Michael Schumacher said: "As far as I understand, it was an initiative from Renault, I don't recall they called me, first of all. I would have been surprised if they had anyway. Just to make clear, this was not a GPDA thing. I think we just have different opinions about it, which is only natural so I would not have signed it."
Asked if there were was anything in particular about the statement which he objected to, the German responded: "There were certain points that were never really part of the discussion, actually, so there was no point in signing it."
With Jordan's Tiago Monteiro claiming that he had never heard or seen the statement and then saying that nobody had contacted him for his opinion, Jarno Trulli fired back with his own thinly-veiled dig. The Italian claimed that the failure of all members of the GPDA signing the statement 'weakened' the drivers' union, furthermore he hinted that, in his opinion, someone was lying about not being consulted. "We will all get the information from the GPDA by email. So nobody can say I didn't get the message."
Subsequently, indicating the rift that is clearly threatening the GPDA, the Italian said: "You can only say I didn't agree. That is my opinion. But I think it is better to discuss it more."
A meeting took place on Friday, but nothing was resolved, and therefore the drivers chose to meet again at Silverstone.
Then, on Sunday, it emerged that several drivers were unhappy having been told that in the wake of the statement, David Coulthard had allegedly received a "threatening" phone call from FIA president, Max Mosley. Not wanting any further dirty washing done in public, it was agreed that Mosley would meet with the drivers at Silverstone, nonetheless, the story was out in the open, even though direct quotes were surprisingly scarce.
Now, the saga has taken a new twist, with Coulthard, seemingly free of the corporate shackles that bound him at McLaren, appearing to take up a role - on behalf of the drivers - similar to that of Paul Stoddart with the 'rebel' teams.
Talking to members of the British media yesterday, the Scot took the opportunity to take a further swipe at the FIA, this time slamming the new rules that have been introduced in recent years.
"All these rules - qualifying, single laps and ten-place penalties - are not designed to wreck races, but the consequence is that they do, said Coulthard, according to The Times. "If you go out early in one race, you have to start early in qualifying for the next. That means you have a bad qualifying, because physically you just cannot go quicker than someone else who has an equal lap later in the session because the track is in a better condition.
"So it is a handicapped F1 system we have. You are handicapped if you have an engine failure, even if it is no fault of the driver, and then the crowd are deprived of what may be a fantastic race, as they were in France."
Of course, pointing out the fact that Coulthard has been one of the major 'victims' of the single-lap qualifying system would be unfair, so let's not do it.
The Scot is convinced, as are many, that most of the rules were introduced with one aim in mind, to penalize the Ferrari/Schumacher juggernaut.
"This was done because Ferrari were dominating. It was wrong to do it for that reason, just because one person is doing the job and others are not. We should applaud success not handicap it.," he said, echoing a view aired on countless forums and message boards in the last couple of years.
"All this shaking the grid up artificially. Why?" he continued. "Ultimately cream rises to the top during the year and shaking the grid up only allows other lesser people on the grid to influence the outcome of what could be a great World Championship."
He ended his diatribe with a clear dig at the FIA president: "We have a scheduled meeting at Silverstone on Friday with the FIA president unless he finds something else in his diary. 'We very much look forward to discussing a range of safety issues and obviously one of the topics will be Indianapolis."
Now all this is very laudable, it is truly wonderful to see drivers speaking out over safety, and also voicing their opinions regarding some of the recent rule changes. But why have they waited so bloody long?
In recent years the GPDA has been conspicuous by its absence. Every now and then it speaks out, or rather whispers, often over issues such as the HANS device, blue flags and the rule whereby experienced drivers - those who had participated in more than 6 races in the previous two seasons, were barred from driving in Friday free practice sessions, in favour of inexperienced rookies - a rule driven by Coulthard's then employer, Ron Dennis.
There have been statements from the GPDA regarding behaviour by back-markers, but never were the real pressing issues tackled. Ahead of the 2004 Australian GP it was revealed that the GPDA was the driving force - no pun intended - behind a competition whereby "six lucky fans" got the opportunity to win "a money-can't-buy guided tour of the F1 paddock on race day, during which they will have photo opportunities with several F1 drivers".
But where was the GPDA when Ralf Schumacher crashed at Indianapolis in 2004, where was the GPDA following Button's crash at Spa Francorchamps later in the year?
Why have countless stewards' decisions regarding "racing incidents" gone un-disputed by the GPDA, why has the GPDA waited until now to question new rules brought in over the last couple of seasons?
Where was the GPDA - as a sole voice - when the aggregate qualifying system was introduced, what is its view regarding the proposed rule changes for 2008, indeed how does it regards the threat of a breakaway series?
We've said all this before, indeed Pitpass has continually criticised the GPDA for its lack of teeth, indeed balls, having singularly failed to speak out over the issues that really matter, after all, it's the drivers that are putting their lives on the line, if anyone has a right to voice an opinion it's them.
We recently heard David Coulthard call for an improvement in safety standards at F1 tests, might we call on the Red Bull driver to tell us what moves the GPDA has made in this area. Certainly, at the numerous tests carried out since he made his comments there doesn't appear to be any noticeable improvement.
Suddenly the GPDA finds a voice (and how), and by an amazing coincidence it comes at a time when the last thing the sport needs is further political unrest. Furthermore, and another amazing coincidence, the target of the GPDA's discontent, like the rebel teams, is the FIA president.
We have nothing but respect for Coulthard and his fellow drivers, however we must ask why has it taken so long for them to speak out, why have the members of the GPDA sat on their hands for so long?
If this is a sign that drivers will no longer allow themselves be forced to keep quiet, and will now be openly critical of the sport, it's rule makers, its rules and of one another, then it is to be applauded.
At this time however, dissent is the name of the game, especially if it consists of having a dig at Max and his 'mates at Maranello', but let's not take it too far boys, the team bosses and sponsors won't like it if you start getting too vocal, that's not what you're there for.
For every complaining F1 star, bleating down the phone to the media from his Monaco apartment, or his yacht, to the media, there are a dozen up-and-coming youngsters only too keen to sign on the dotted line, for less pay and only to keen to toe the party line. If you're going to get political it will be a bitter fight and there will be casualties, furthermore it's an on-going battle.
One of the leading lights of the GPDA is Mark Webber, who was named as a director in late 2003. Only a couple of years prior to that, the Australian having suffered a number of catastrophic crashes in the Mercedes CLR at Le Mans, dutifully obeyed when told to get back in a car that was already known to be wildly unpredictable, if not downright dangerous. That he and Peter Drumbreck lived to tell the tale is more a case of luck than judgement. Webber knows why he got back in that car, and will be fully aware that if he and his GPDA colleagues get out of line - once their current political usefulness has expired - their paymasters will have no hesitation in seeking out some unknown, undemanding, youngsters rising through the ranks.
We applaud the fact that the GPDA appears to have found its bark and even some teeth, and hope that we are not witnessing the latest salvo in a political game that threatens the very future of the sport.
If the GPDA has found a voice, may we hear it more often and may it be proactive rather than reactive.
We look at certain members of the GPDA and we can almost swear that we see strings above their heads.