Talk:Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile
Automobiles Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Formula One Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Sports Car Racing Unassessed | |||||||
|
[[{{{1}}} World Rally Championship|{{{1}}}]]
FIA classifications
It would be good to have a reference here for those FIA categories: Group 4, Group 5, etc. of the 1970s and Group A, Group B, Group C from the 1980s. Most people don't realize that Group B was not intended just as a rallying category; the Porsche 959 was first shown as the "Porsche Gruppe B" concept; the Ferrari 288GTO was also designed with Group B regulations in mind. Both cars had 2.8-litre turbo engines. For circuit racing, manufacturers simply didn't show interest in that category (the Ferrari GTO Evoluzione being a Group B prototype that never raced). Group C was another matter of course.
Vandalism
Removed "FIA president Max Mosley has said all FIA members are either gay or lesbian" lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Db1987db (talk • contribs) 11:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
North America - Eurocentric
The organistan appears to be eurocentric. What's the reason behind the lack of a North American presence (ie. it relationship with NASCAR, IRL CHamp etc)? Htra0497 19:00, 22 oCtober 2006 (AET)
- Well, that might have something to do with the simple fact that the FIA has no involvement in the governing of U.S. motorsport.... Adrian M. H. 14:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I very much doubt that's through choice either. They are the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, after all. Some explanation in the article wouldn't go amiss mind you. --kingboyk (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- FIA is involved: The ACCUSFIA is a FIA member and North America's sporting authority. And ACCUSFIA's members are NASCAR, IMSA, Champ Car, ... For example FIA approves the Champ Car calendar. That's why they were disallowed to to race in China in 2007. But the North American series aren't to much involved with adopting FIA sporting code and rules. --Motorsport-archive (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I very much doubt that's through choice either. They are the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, after all. Some explanation in the article wouldn't go amiss mind you. --kingboyk (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Medical Faculty
If anyone takes on the task of re-writing and expanding this article, which it certainly needs, be sure to include information about the new FIA Medical Faculty. References can be found on the usual motorsport news sites if you need them. Adrian M. H. 21:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
What about the WMSC?
The WMSC and its decisions should IMO be a separarte article. The way it works could then be documented in more detail, and the directvies taken by it could therefore be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALCUS36 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I personally think it should be a section here until such time as it outgrows this article. However, if you really want to edit the WMSC article you need this link: [1] There would be various redirects to sort out too. --kingboyk (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Criticism
What about what probably tens of thousands of race enthusiast (particularly Porsche ones who I have encountered in the past) said about them, favouritism of French marques such as Matra and Peugeot, especially Group C and in the 70's or changing the rules to suit them, that will be worth adding. Willirennen (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- It would attract an almost instant NPOV unless carefully written. --Falcadore (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
List of clubs
That list of clubs (or is ASN the correct terminology rather than club) is going to swamp the article. Surely it would be better to break that out into its own article as "List of FIA affiliate clubs or organisations" or a permutation of such and refer to it by link from ther FIA page. Readability is the most important part of any article and the majority of people browsing across the FIA article will have little interest in a list of the 163 member ASNs. --Falcadore (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- As soon as I finished it, I agreed (without even reading this) - I'll be splitting it out as we speak. Duncan1800 (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Pared down this article quite a bit, of course, but it needs some work anyway - that timeline is a bit sparse. Duncan1800 (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)