Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Formula One: British lawmakers ask FIA to reconsider Bahrain race, putting 2012 and 2013 events in jeopardy

By: Quentin Spurring on 2/12/2012

The 2012 Bahraini Grand Prix looks so insecure that the latest attacks on its validity, including one by a group of British lawmakers, could be enough to force cancellation of the event.

The controversial Formula One race is scheduled for April 22. However, pressure on the FIA and Formula One Management (FOM) is increased by a regulation stating that any event that is canceled within 12 weeks of its scheduled date will be excluded from the following year's schedule. The deadline for this rule to apply to this race passed at the end of January. If the 2012 race is cancelled, FOM and the Bahraini promoter (effectively the royal family) would have to convince the FIA of their case for force majeure, equivalent to a natural disaster. Otherwise, they would also lose the 2013 event.

Civil unrest in the nation caused the cancellation of the April 2010 race after weeks of similar controversy. Efforts were made to reschedule it later in the season, but it was ultimately canceled in June after protests from some of the teams and their sponsors.

Various lobbying groups are campaigning against the race, notably the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, which last month called on the teams to implement a boycott. This week, members of the House of Lords joined with Caroline Lucas, a Green Party MP in the House of Commons, to write an open letter to the Times newspaper in London to express their concerns about the race.

The British politicians wrote: “We note with concern the decision by Formula One to go ahead with the race in Bahrain scheduled for April. The continued political crisis in Bahrain is a troubling source of instability in the Gulf region, and the lack of any move towards political reconciliation concerns those who wish to see Bahrain move in the direction of greater democratic accountability.

"It was hoped that the recommendations of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) would provide a starting point for political reform which both government and opposition forces could agree upon. Two months on, we see an entrenchment of the positions of both sides, which risks letting more extreme voices dictate the progress of the conflict. Given the current dire situation, with daily street protests and the deaths of more civilians, we do not believe that the time is right for Formula One to return to Bahrain.

“Bahrain is a major trading hub and financial center in the Middle East, but this brings greater responsibility. Human rights and economic stability go hand in hand, and the government of Bahrain must do more to persuade international events and corporations that Bahrain is a stable place to do business. Until it takes concerted measures to reform the electoral, penal and judicial processes, international observers as well as ordinary Bahrainis can have little confidence that Bahrain is on the path to reform and political stability.

“We urge the FIA to reconsider its decision to continue with the race.”

Meanwhile, the ongoing civil unrest in the nation has created controversy directly connected to the Bahrain International Circuit, which is owned by the Sunni royal family. It has emerged that last year the management of the venue fired 29 members of the staff, most of them from the suppressed Shia majority, apparently for participating in antigovernment protests.

BIC announced last month that, as a reconciliatory gesture, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa was responding to a recommendation in a BICI report by reinstating all of them. The CEO of the circuit, Sheikh Salman bin Isa Al-Khalifa, said: "The reinstatement of our BIC colleagues is part of an important initiative towards national reconciliation and unity for the kingdom as a whole. I now look forward to working with all BIC colleagues to ensure that we continue to provide world-class track events, which every citizen of Bahrain can be proud to support."

But according to a report at arabianbusiness.com, only three people are actually back in their previous jobs. The Web site cannot say how many have simply refused the offer. Nabeel Rajab, the vice president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, said the offer was a cynical attempt to deflect the calls for a boycott of this year's race.

“I very strongly believe that this was just to get Formula One back,” Rajab said. “They should not have just reinstated those people; they should have launched an investigation. The staff don't know why they were sacked, and now they are expected to come back to work without answers.”

In the final analysis, this year's Bahraini Grand Prix will happen only if the big brands in F1--automobile manufacturers Ferrari, Lotus, Mercedes-Benz and Renault, specialists such as Caterham and Marussia, sponsors from diverse commercial sectors such as Kingfisher, Marlboro, Mobil, Petronas, Pirelli, Red Bull, Santander, Total, Virgin and Vodafone--are convinced that they will not damage their image by taking part.

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20120212/F1/120219965

they may as well cancel it anyway, because there's shit currently going down as we speak

and you just absolutely, absolutely know the disgruntled muzzas will show up to poop the party

Renault may not have the most powerful engine on the grid but, according to their F1 director, the company supplies teams with the most fuel efficient.

Having sold the final batch of shares in their F1 team to Genii Capital, Renault's role in Formula One is now solely as an engine supplier.

In that role the French company has excelled in recent seasons, winning back-to-back Championship doubles with Red Bull Racing in 2010 and 2011.

And, according to Jean François Caubet, Renault's F1 director, part of the secret to that success in their engine's fuel efficiency.

"The Mercedes engine is about 15hp more power than ours, so too does Ferrari offer more power," he told AS.

"But, as far as drivability and fuel economy go the Renault engine is out in front as we need less gas."

In fact, so much so that Caubet estimates that Red Bull Racing, the defending Champs, "can start races with 15 or 18 litres less fuel in the tank than their competition - and that makes the difference."

http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/7518314/-Renault-power-needs-less-gas-

interesting bit of logic there.

Edited by tweety bird

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • But I think you missed mine.. there is also nothing about the 98 spec that supports your claim..  according to the fuel standards, it can be identical to 95, just very slightly higher octane number. But the ulp vs pulp fuel regulations go show 95 (or 98), is not just 91 with some additives. any claim of ‘refined by the better refineries’ or ‘higher quality fuel’ is just hearsay.  I have never seen anything to back up such claims other than ‘my mate used to work for a fuel station’, or ‘drove a fuel delivery truck’, or ‘my mechanic says’.. the actual energy densities do slightly vary between the 3 grades of fuel, but the difference is very minor. That said, I am very happy to be proven wrong if anyone has some hard evidence..
    • Hey guys I’m chasing a Rb20det complete or bare block need a good running engine as mine has low comp 
    • You're making my point for me. 95 is not "premium". It is a "slightly higher octane" version of the basic 91 product. The premium product that they want people to buy (for all the venal corporate reasons of making more profit, and all the possibly specious reasons of it being a "better" fuel with nicer additive packages) is the 98 octane stuff. 95 is the classic middle child. No-one wants it. No-one cares about it. It is just there, occupying a space in the product hierarchy.
    • 98 and 95 have to meet the same national fuel standards beside the actual RON.  91 has lower standards (which are quite poor really), so 95 is certainly not 91 with some octane booster. It would be an easier argument to claim 98 is just 95 with some octane boosters. Also RON doesn't specify 'quality' in any sense, only the octane number.  Anything different retailers decide or not decide to add to their 95 or 98 is arbitrary and not defined by the RON figure.
    • Anyone know alternatives to powerplus tungsten? Can't find an alternative online. 
×
×
  • Create New...