Trulli criticises the non-GPDA drivers (Sutil, Hamilton and Raikkonen) http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67196

Massa leaves the GPDA, criticising the way it's run
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67239

Alonso criticises the non-GPDA drivers
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67271


I think it's great there's organzation into improving drivers safety in F1. However back in 2006 I recall reading or hearing how the GPDA meetings were nothing more then drivers b*tching and moaning about each other. With Felipe leaving organzation because he didn't like the way it was run. You have to question the GPDA.

When it was formed in 1970 or so, the Grand Prix Driver's Association had a purpose: to promote safety improvements in cars and circuits, and demand them, if necessary. There were those at the time who thought Jackie Stewart, who organized the GPDA, was making a fuss over nothing. However, Stewart had seen a number of racing friends killed in accidents that might otherwise have either been avoided or not been as severe if safety was taken into consideration.

It took him several years and considerable heat from all sides, but he eventually got what he was after. When Stewart started in F-1, you could count on at least one driver a year dying in a racing crash. In 1970, three drivers were killed in F-1 accidents; that total does not include Bruce McLaren, who died testing a Can-Am car. Now, there hasn't been a racing fataility in F-1 in many years. Some of the crashes have been brutal, others spectacular, but drivers have walked away from them; even the severe ones like Robert Kubica's at Montreal was more or less a "walk-away," thanks to much better safety on the cars and the tracks.

The down side of any union is, eventually it has served its purpose. It becomes, if not irrelevant, then at least unnecessary most of the time.

GreyWolf74 - 13 May 2008 12:43 AM

The down side of any union is, eventually it has served its purpose. It becomes, if not irrelevant, then at least unnecessary most of the time.

I agree. It's served it's purpose in past. Trulli keeps making issue about money. Where's the money going? Trulli needs to present better case.

FerrariEnzo - 13 May 2008 01:06 AM

GreyWolf74 - 13 May 2008 12:43 AM

The down side of any union is, eventually it has served its purpose. It becomes, if not irrelevant, then at least unnecessary most of the time.

I agree. It's served it's purpose in past. Trulli keeps making issue out of money. Where's the money going? Trulli needs to present better case.

I agree. His rationale for supporting the GPDA agenda is not clear. Joining for the sake of joining is... well redundant.

thebatsignal - 13 May 2008 02:01 AM

I agree. His rationale for supporting the GPDA agenda is not clear. Joining for the sake of joining is... well redundant.

If I was Kimi and I was told to give up $23,000 for GPDA membership. I would like to know where its going. $200 per point x 110 ($22,000) + $1,000 on top that.