HRT complains to FIA about Caterham

  • Thread starter Peter.
  • 41 comments
  • 5,299 views
Minardi, Spyker and Super Aguri all had cars finish in the points, and two of them entered fewer Grands Prix! HRT have never even looked like getting a car anywhere near the points.

But never consistently in the points. And let's be honest, as much as everybody loved them, Minardi didn't produce cars in the points on merit. Only once did Minardi qualify and race for points on merit. It was always a case of languishing at the back and being more reliable than the cars in front once every 30 races. And yes, reliability is a sign of merit I know, but the point I'm saying is that Minardi relied on the cars in front falling off the road before they were anywhere near the points. And that's after wondering if their 2 year old engine will even make it to the finish.

If today's cars had the reliability, and if today's races had the same levels of attrition, of the 1980s/1990s, then all three of the 'new' teams would be fighting for points more often. You can't blame HRT for proudcing a car which can't get off the back of the grid if the cars in front are always faster and more reliable. Take away HRT then you have Marussia rooted to the back. Take them away and then you have Caterham. Then STR. Then Williams. And so on, and so on. There will always be a backmarker team. And right now, HRT aren't contravening any rules.
 
Fixed.

They are disorganised, dangerously slow and show nowhere near the level of professionalism of Marussia, let alone Caterham.

Just saying, HRT weren't the last team during the off season this year to have their car prepared.

HRT are worth respecting on the grounds that they are able to take what little they have ,and with their fighting spirit, manage to do almost as well as Marussia, and even better sometimes. HRT managed to outqualify Virgin last year a bunch of times.

Not only that, but they've been undoubtedly the most reliable of the three new teams. Caterham have more resources, talent, and around twice the money now, but still struggle to finish races in their third year.
 
but still struggle to finish races in their third year.

1) There has been 2 races, both Caterham's retired in Australia but were running at the end in Malaysia.

2) HRT failed to even make it into the race at Australia and were 1 lap behind Caterham at Malaysia.

There are still 18 races left in the year, it really is too early to even talk about reliability.
 
Minardi, Spyker and Super Aguri all had cars finish in the points, and two of them entered fewer Grands Prix! HRT have never even looked like getting a car anywhere near the points.

Neither have Caterham or Marussia...even Williams struggled for points last year.

All the teams you mentioned never looked like they were ever going to score points - which is why it was such a special occasion when they did. As everyone else has already said - retirements enabled those teams to score points, its not at all fair to compare HRT to them when you are not considering the differences in situation.
 
I'm pretty sure the FIA can fine them for breaches of the sporting code. They just can't hand down a sentence in what would be a criminal or civil case. The reason why Briatore's ban was overturned was because he was match-fixing, so the FIA should have referred the matter to French and/or Singaporean prosecutors.

A while ago on Radio Le Mans it was said by the F1 correspondant Nick Daman, that because of the Flav decision that the FIA have to give McLaren back the $100 million fine since in order to fine them they would have had to do it through the law courts.
 
A while ago on Radio Le Mans it was said by the F1 correspondant Nick Daman, that because of the Flav decision that the FIA have to give McLaren back the $100 million fine since in order to fine them they would have had to do it through the law courts.
If that were the case, it surely would have been reported in other motorsport media. Why didn't Autosport, for example, print it?
 
If that were the case, it surely would have been reported in other motorsport media. Why didn't Autosport, for example, print it?

Because it's a matter that neither the FIA or McLaren would want to talk about, and the so called journalists that work for Autosport these days hardly do anything beyond trotting out press releases.

Nick Daman used to work in F1 and has contacts within the teams and Radio Le Mans is governed by the usual regulations regarding Radio broadcast, therefore if he was prepared to say it live on air when say, a solicitor might be listening, I'd say he would have felt himself to be on safe ground.
 
If the teams and the FIA could suppress it, Daman would have been in trouble wherever he said it. An embargo is an embargo - you can't break it. Daman said it without any problems, so it wasn't suppressed ... but, strangely, nobody else saw fit to report it despite it being headling news.
 
No. What I mean is, if they don't announce it then it won't get reported.

Investigative journalism would be needed to find it out and that is lacking in motorsport journalism.

What the Flav appeal established is that the FIA cannot convene one of its own hearings and acting like it can hand out punishments like the courts can.

The McLaren issue was dealt with in such a hearing and therefore it has no legal foundation.

That is why RLM said McLaren will get their money back.
 
Investigative journalism would be needed to find it out and that is lacking in motorsport journalism.
It's hardly investigative. If the verdict was reversed in a court of law, then the documents would be free to be obtained, unless the case was sealed. And since there is no sensitive information in the case, they have no reason to seal it.

What the Flav appeal established is that the FIA cannot convene one of its own hearings and acting like it can hand out punishments like the courts can.
No, the Briatore case proved that the FIA cannot hand down sentences on criminal matters. They are still free to prosecute within the bounds of their own sporting code. If they weren't, then that would set a precedent whereby governing bodies of sports would not be able to take action against competitors who broke their own rules. What do you think that would mean for, say, cycling, where performance-enhancing drugs are a constant issue? Or for the Olympics, where the IOC would be powerless to stop cheating?

The McLaren issue was dealt with in such a hearing and therefore it has no legal foundation.
The McLaren episode was not prosecuted as a criminal case the way Briatore's was.
 
Back