(WRC Australia) Loeb's Citroen c4 wrc under investigation!!!!

[Tumbo]

no more wins tho in argentina that yr he crashed out very heavily chasing Gronholm for the win (something he didn't ahve to do because the pugs were excluded for running underweight flywheels - ahhh full circle)

[WRCfan]

If Citroen infringed on the rules as Ford did with their windows then an infringement is an infringement. Penalty should have been the same as in the Ford case. However it works it's a blow for Seb and a chance for Mikko to really take the championship.

It's deserved, they should know replacing a part whether they are allowed to or not, if not then they shouldn't replace it without getting it homologated. Someone in the team has gone and made a big time mistake here.

[Barreis]

no more wins tho in argentina that yr he crashed out very heavily chasing Gronholm for the win (something he didn't ahve to do because the pugs were excluded for running underweight flywheels - ahhh full circle)

His face (on onboards) show that year he didn't enjoy anymore..

[Shrike]

I agree the penalty should be equal to past homologation penalties or at very least, future similar penalties should be consistant with this "new" penalty. Otherwise I will start believing what has been long suggested on this forum about the credibility of the FIA.

[Grany]

payback for the Windows thing in Portugal

About the Citroen's case, it's just a "administrative" problem.
The proof: no car modifications were required - for the future - because anti-roll bar support respected regulation compliance.
Not the Ford's case...forced to change the windows.
Major difference, no?

Why the french teams don't get propper sanctions...Exclusion is the only thing they schould do. But as we know FIA is federation....french....

Only 1 minute penalty for the Citroën's? The only right decision was an exclusion for them. Of course Loeb and the French guys are always favoured in motorsport and can do what they want. Now Citroën will win the Manufacturers championship with a car that wasn't legal in an event...

Another thing added to my list of farces in WRC that I typed yesterday. We will have a big book at the end of this year.

Why Ford don't get any sanction during the Portugal 2007 rally; Gronholm's Focus was found to be underweight. Isn't it a basic cheat punished in any other sport, no?

About FIA is soooo french, it's like I said that UN is american organization or NATO is belgian organization...
And soooo much french guys in the FIA World Motor Sport Council: http://www.private.fia.com/Web/fia-priv ... CMSA%20après%20AG%202008.pdf

Funny to read that Renault F1, ex Peugeot WRC or even Citroen/Loeb (remember Montecarlo 2002) are still favored.

[Shrike]

Why Ford don't get any sanction during the Portugal 2007 rally; Gronholm's Focus was found to be underweight. Isn't it a basic cheat punished in any other sport, no?

That is a bit of a reach in my opinion. Gronholm or his team didn't decide to crash and lose a tire. Maybe he should have been penalized but it was an accident on the stage that caused it.

[Daniel]

When Tommi took that win from S.Loeb on MC 2002 that was the start of the end of his career.. If I remember good no wins for Tommi after that..

Only a few months earlier the 2 WTC's were taked down as well. Coincidence?

[Daniel]

]Yes they are, but why stewards have a respect to this level only in case of someone and don't give a s.h.i.t about any other team?

Is using heavier nationaly-homologated laminate mudguard cheating? Especialy when using such part is allowed next year? Why four cars were excluded for that despite FIA itself said that heavier part gave them no advantage?

Is using thinner brake discs from outdated homologation cheating? What is an advantage from using worse part which was two years before normaly legal? It's mistake but cheating? Why was the crew excluded?

Is outdated glowes cheating? Why was the driver excluded?

These cases happened. WRC is not only about factory teams and those others may for sure feel damaged by this funny penalty for Citroën. Rulles should be applied the same way if FIA wants others to respect them otherwise it's more a commedy. That's my stance.

Let's remember that stewards change from event to event.

[Daniel]

That is a bit of a reach in my opinion. Gronholm or his team didn't decide to crash and lose a tire. Maybe he should have been penalized but it was an accident on the stage that caused it.

Yes but they designed the car in a significantly different way to the competition. Any other competition car would have to crash out of an event to lose the SPARE wheel yet with the Ford it can so easily happen as an "accident"

Personally I think this should have been punished as well. This is not typical crash damage loss of weight.

[I am evil Homer]

About the Citroen's case, it's just a "administrative" problem.
The proof: no car modifications were required - for the future - because anti-roll bar support respected regulation compliance.
Not the Ford's case...forced to change the windows.
Major difference, no?





Why Ford don't get any sanction during the Portugal 2007 rally; Gronholm's Focus was found to be underweight. Isn't it a basic cheat punished in any other sport, no?

About FIA is soooo french, it's like I said that UN is american organization or NATO is belgian organization...
And soooo much french guys in the FIA World Motor Sport Council: http://www.private.fia.com/Web/fia-priv ... CMSA%20après%20AG%202008.pdf

Funny to read that Renault F1, ex Peugeot WRC or even Citroen/Loeb (remember Montecarlo 2002) are still favored.

Finally someone talks sense! If they were cheating Citroean would be asked to change the part...they haven't so it isn't 'illegal'.