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

[ZequeArgentina]

For me it is not the same to cheat that to have an uncompliance.
First case is try to simulate rules compliance , but gaining performance, and try to cover the intentional uncompliance.

the other is an uncompliance due to an error or negligence (the cases Mirek mention, like Argentineans N4 with heavier but cheape fibergalss mudguards, or older barkes).
The Citroen problem, as far as we know, is a mistake in the homologation, or they found they could increase durability, change the part but they did not homolagate that change (can they? is it not restricted opportunities to homologate changes to RC nowadays?).

For me it isat least as severe as the cases mentioned by Mirek (I do not consider the gloves, cause thata is a safety issue for drivers).

and another question: what if Seb had taken more than 1 minute advantageover Mikko? Same penalty? Had he still be considered winner?

2 minute penalty? so Sordo would have lost 3rd position, but same error as now?
Quite strange.
Anyway, I do tink Citroen was penalized, but with privaterers, penalties are stricter, may be too much.

[Daniel]

Wrong - do not confuse cause and effect. It's illegal to have unhomologated part in your car. It does not matter why it's unhomologated.

Did you go to a school to learn to misunderstand things and not read posts like this or does it come naturally?

The fact of the matter is that not in a month of Sundays would Peugeot's water pump or TTE's inlet restrictor EVER have been legal. TTE's inlet restrictor was about as illegal as you get and the 307's water pump wasn't made out of the same material as the road car hence I L L E G A L. All Citroen had to do was homologate this part at the next available opportunity and it was L E G A L. There's a world of difference between the examples I've given and I've explained this before.

[DonJippo]

All Citroen had to do was homologate this part at the next available opportunity and it was L E G A L. There's a world of difference between the examples I've given and I've explained this before.

It matters nothing if the part may be legal sometime in FUTURE what matters is now and it was not according the rules.

[Daniel]

Of course DJ and for this reason it was right to penalise Citroen. But I was just wanting to make a point.

[Helstar]

I can't believe Citroen didn't know they had unhomologated part in their car. In this level of rallying, I just can't believe it.
The question is why did they put it ?

Yes, that one is interesting question ... and also the suspect it couldn't even be the only not-legal part ... also: since when that part has been used ? This rally ? Two ? Whole season ... ? We'll never know.

Impossible. Ogier was running for Manufacturer Team and according to rules, MT cannot use parts homologated this year. Ironically though, as part was not homologated, he was able to use it.

I think Ogier was driving a latest spec C4 this time. I don't know in previous rallies, but you can clearly see by that part that the he had same Loeb and Sordo car here in Australia. And that is forbidden btw (M2 can have 08 cars spec at best).

Oh last thing, we are forgetting the engine failure of Loeb's car in the shakedown of Mexico last year (if I remember well).
Citroen changed the engine and didn't even know they would get a penalty lol ! And the funniest thing is that they mounted the previous broken one again, which was meanwhile 'repaired' (?). And FIA said oh all ok then, it's fine you can go on now...

[Daniel]

They wouldn't be so dumb as to give Ogier the latest spec car.

[A.F.F.]

I don't Citroen cheating since everybody cheats.

I mind them not having the same scale of penalty as others

[alleskids]

Ogier was nominated for the MT2 Junior team, and MT2 are not alowed to have the latest specifications, so Ogier could not have driven the latest C4 and be nominated for MT2

[Mirek]

I don't Citroen cheating since everybody cheats.

I mind them not having the same scale of penalty as others

+1

Better than differet aplication of rulles to each competitor is to stop using rulles at all and let everyone do whatever he wants. The stronger and happier survives. Noone can complain and spectators are happy... mokin:

... the only problem is that we would have crowd of poor jobless FIA officials

[bowler]

the modified part did not alter the performance of the car in any way.

the stewards who heard the case were appointed by the FIA, and base their decision on the information presented to them. They do not need to refer to any "higher" authority.

I assume that the actual modification is so minor that it only warrants the penalty imposed.

Those of us on this forum have the ability to speculate, but do not have any of the information presented to the stewards.