Turns out Citroen weren't cheating

[Daniel]

I thought this deserved its own thread as the forum seems to be broken because none of the people who accused Citroen of cheating in the other thread seem to be able to view the latest posts - either that or they're too ignorant to realise what it means, too petty to admit they're wrong or it just doesn't agree with their anti-French/anti-FIA agenda.

Thanks to Anesa and of course GPweek you can see the differences in the links and you will also read that the part WAS actually homologated but that Citroen hadn't included a picture of the new part hence the penalty.


http://www.gpweek.com/PDF/GP064.pdf

Any comments? :)

P.S I'm going outside to carve another notch in my ARB links as this will surely improve my cars performance :wave:

[N.O.T]

wow...that shows that they are not cheaters but certainly are stupid...

[MJW]

My post from the previous thread you refered to Daniel.

I must admit from the story in gpweek.com it does seem an embarassing error, and not an attempt at cheating. However, based on that I think the penalty was about right, afterall Ford had 5 mins with those "thin" windows, and that was a deliberate attempt at gaining a weight advantage.

[Juha_Koo]

that was a deliberate attempt at gaining a weight advantage.

Please show some evidence that justifies your comment. :eek:

The windows were too thin because of a mistake by a supplier...

[Brother John]

Do we need this? Do we need really this thread?
And Yes, this thread could come only from Daniel, but that is normal because it concerns Citroën.
Nowadays it look that everyone started for each message already a new thread. :confused:
Unfortunate that´s why a lot of forum members now disappears here. :(

[Daniel]

Do we need this? Do we need really this thread?
And Yes, this thread could come only from Daniel, but that is normal because it concerns Citroën.
Nowadays it look that everyone started for each message already a new thread. :confused:
Unfortunate that´s why a lot of forum members now disappears here. :(
LOL the WRC forum has declined because of me? Nothing to do with the lack of manufacturers, decent coverage, drivers with some personality, loss of decent rallies and the explosion in the numbers of snoozefest rallies then eh? :laugh:

BJ, just admit you were wrong, you and countless others accused Citroen of cheating and funnily enough when the evidence was posted the only person who came back and made any comment acknowledging that Citroen hadn't cheated was MJW ( :up: to you MJW!) and you had to bring a cheating Italian, a cheating Brit and a spineless Brazilian into a thread which was meant to be about some Frenchmen who had cheated.

If it had turned out that Citroen had cheated then I'd be the first to admit it, why can't you just admit that you were wrong?

[Daniel]

Please show some evidence that justifies your comment. :eek:

The windows were too thin because of a mistake by a supplier...

Well to say that Ford were cheating is a more logical conclusion than to say that Citroen were cheating - Ford's windows were in direct contravention the regulations stipulating a minimum thickness on the windows of 3.5mm whereas suspension design is for all intents and purposes free and all Citroen did wrong was not include a photo of the new part.

Ford are also famous for wanting to lower the CoG of their cars so it's not impossible that they did it on purpose although of course can't be proven.

[White Sauron]

Daniel, do you believe to any word that Media or team managers say?
Olivier could say anything afterall, just to seem innocent for the likes of you. Where's the proof for his words? Where's the proof that this part had really been homologated? The words "we just forgot to change the photo" are a simple excuse.

[Brother John]

OK, but was then Ford cheating with the windows. As Juha_Koo say already, " The windows were too thin because or a mistake by a supplier".
And who was then here for calling that Ford was cheating?
Same sh!t when Ford started with tactics, everyone was scolding to Ford but if tactics is used by Citroën they are great!
For this reason I find this a ridiculous thread! :dozey:

[Daniel]

Daniel, do you believe to any word that Media or team managers say?
Olivier could say anything afterall, just to seem innocent for the likes of you. Where's the proof for his words? Where's the proof that this part had really been homologated? The words "we just forgot to change the photo" are a simple excuse.
Well it matches the official explanation for the penalty exactly, there is an additional notch which is clear in the photo and the explanations which came out from the FIA. The fact of the matter is that suspension design is free so if Citroen wanted to homologate a prosthetic leg as an ARB link then they damn well can. There is no advantage to Citroen to not homologate this part. It really is as simple as that.....

[Mirek]

FIA announcement speaks different than GP Week article or Mr. Quessnel...


A report from post event scrutineering stated that the front anti roll bar link of Car No 1 (Loeb/Elena) did not comply with the homologation form of the car.

The Entrant agreed that a part was different from the homologation photo because of the increased length of the part requiring additional notches.

Source: http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wrc/2009/Pages/wrc_news_aus3_upd.aspx

Anyway, it's absolutely useless thread :dozey:

[Daniel]

]FIA announcement speaks different than GP Week article or Mr. Quessnel...



Source: http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wrc/2009/Pages/wrc_news_aus3_upd.aspx

True enough. Although the FIA are referring to the new part as being longer than the pictured part so the explanation holds true. A moot point still when you consider that suspension is essentially free and manufacturers can do what they want with it.

[Camelopard]

Please show some evidence that justifies your comment. :eek:

The windows were too thin because of a mistake by a supplier...


Exactly, but when Ford or their suppliers makes a mistake it can only be cheating..... :)

[macksrallye]

Daniel, I agree that cheating seems a wrong word to use but to cheat is to not follow the rules, of which having a homologated car is one. Whether by their own fault or someone else's Citroen did not have a car that met their own homologation papers so for as far as most (including myself) are concerned they cheated. Whether the part could be, would be or is homologated is irelevant if it's not in the homologation papers. In reality they cheated, just as Ford did with their windows (they didn't make sure the were right before fitting) and Toyota (well we all know what his was) and when this is your business you should be on top of everything.

[macksrallye]

when you consider that suspension is essentially free and manufacturers can do what they want with it.

Essentially free provided it is homologated!

[bowler]

I don't consider that Citroen were cheating, but they did make a mistake for which they were penalised.

Flavio was cheating, make no mistake.

[driveace]

Hold on guys ,are you ALL scrutineers???
Do you all know the Blue book inside out?

[cali]

I even do not know if the books is blue or red :p :

[cut the b.s.]

Daniel, I agree that cheating seems a wrong word to use but to cheat is to not follow the rules, of which having a homologated car is one. Whether by their own fault or someone else's Citroen did not have a car that met their own homologation papers so for as far as most (including myself) are concerned they cheated. Whether the part could be, would be or is homologated is irelevant if it's not in the homologation papers. In reality they cheated, just as Ford did with their windows (they didn't make sure the were right before fitting) and Toyota (well we all know what his was) and when this is your business you should be on top of everything.


a little english lesson for you :)

Cheating is an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition. Cheating characteristically is employed to create an unfair advantage, usually in one's own interest, and often at the expense of others, [1] Cheating implies the breaking of rules. The term "cheating" is less applicable to the breaking of laws, as illegal activities are referred to by specific legal terminology such as fraud or corruption. Cheating is a primordial economic act: getting more for less, often used when referring to marital infidelity. A person who is guilty of cheating is generally referred to as a cheat (British English), or a cheater (American English).

I think if you read this carefully you will realise that cheating requires an intent to gain an unfair advantage, Citroen made a mistake, they are guilty of an oversight, but they didn't cheat.

Initially I thought Citroen had got off lightly, with what is now know I think it would be a shame if this was to be decisive in the championship(karma for Poland maybe though!) A fine for the team would have been more appropriate IMHO :-)

[RS]

Initially I thought Citroen had got off lightly, with what is now know I think it would be a shame if this was to be decisive in the championship(karma for Poland maybe though!) A fine for the team would have been more appropriate IMHO :-)

I agree. I wouldn't have thought Mikko would want to be champion because of a paperwork error either.

[OldF]

In this http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/60D95F3EA98F4ABCC1257633004CA612/$FILE/ToutesVoitures_2009.pdf document you can see who has homologated what and when. Citroen C4 on pages 12 and 13, Ford Focus on pages 22-24.



that suspension is essentially free and manufacturers can do what they want with it.

They can’t do what they like with the suspension and what they’re allowed to do by the regulations must be homologated.

[macksrallye]

a little english lesson for you :)

Cheating is an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition. Cheating characteristically is employed to create an unfair advantage, usually in one's own interest, and often at the expense of others, [1] Cheating implies the breaking of rules. The term "cheating" is less applicable to the breaking of laws, as illegal activities are referred to by specific legal terminology such as fraud or corruption. Cheating is a primordial economic act: getting more for less, often used when referring to marital infidelity. A person who is guilty of cheating is generally referred to as a cheat (British English), or a cheater (American English).

My apologies, it appears that Daniel was right then.

Whatever the term may be Citreon stuffed up badly. Not having the right copy of homologation papers for a car that you homologated is pathetic for a company whose business it is to build these cars to the homologation papers so that people (privateers) can use them.

[AndyRAC]

My apologies, it appears that Daniel was right then.

Whatever the term may be Citreon stuffed up badly. Not having the right copy of homologation papers for a car that you homologated is pathetic for a company whose business it is to build these cars to the homologation papers so that people (privateers) can use them.

But how many true Privateers use them?

[Daniel]

In this http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/60D95F3EA98F4ABCC1257633004CA612/$FILE/ToutesVoitures_2009.pdf document you can see who has homologated what and when. Citroen C4 on pages 12 and 13, Ford Focus on pages 22-24.




They can’t do what they like with the suspension and what they’re allowed to do by the regulations must be homologated.

Of course they need to homologate it. When I said free I meant free with regards to design of the suspension, I wasn't saying they could turn up with unhomologated parts.

[Daniel]

a little english lesson for you :)

Cheating is an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition. Cheating characteristically is employed to create an unfair advantage, usually in one's own interest, and often at the expense of others, [1] Cheating implies the breaking of rules. The term "cheating" is less applicable to the breaking of laws, as illegal activities are referred to by specific legal terminology such as fraud or corruption. Cheating is a primordial economic act: getting more for less, often used when referring to marital infidelity. A person who is guilty of cheating is generally referred to as a cheat (British English), or a cheater (American English).

I think if you read this carefully you will realise that cheating requires an intent to gain an unfair advantage, Citroen made a mistake, they are guilty of an oversight, but they didn't cheat.

Initially I thought Citroen had got off lightly, with what is now know I think it would be a shame if this was to be decisive in the championship(karma for Poland maybe though!) A fine for the team would have been more appropriate IMHO :-)

It's great to see some common sense on the forum :) :up:

Personally I think the penalty is more or less fair perhaps tending towards being a little harsh but that's the nature of these things that sometimes penalties can be harsh and sometimes light.

What gets me annoyed is people saying that they cheated when it's clear to anyone who understands what happened, what the regs are, what cheating means etc etc. That's a serious accusation and not one that should be thrown around willy nilly. But sadly anti-french sentiment, ignorance and misunderstanding are getting the best of people.

Like Bowler said, Flabio was cheating. Now I wonder what the people who deem this minor infringemen as cheating would consider that? Down with Italy! Down with pasta even though noodles were first invented in the Far East! Down with the Fiat 500 I own even though it was made in Poland! While we're at it down with pizza as well! :laugh:

[AndyRAC]

It's great to see some common sense on the forum :) :up:

Personally I think the penalty is more or less fair perhaps tending towards being a little harsh but that's the nature of these things that sometimes penalties can be harsh and sometimes light.

What gets me annoyed is people saying that they cheated when it's clear to anyone who understands what happened, what the regs are, what cheating means etc etc. That's a serious accusation and not one that should be thrown around willy nilly. But sadly anti-french sentiment, ignorance and misunderstanding are getting the best of people.

Like Bowler said, Flabio was cheating. Now I wonder what the people who deem this minor infringemen as cheating would consider that? Down with Italy! Down with pasta even though noodles were first invented in the Far East! Down with the Fiat 500 I own even though it was made in Poland! While we're at it down with pizza as well! :laugh:

I'd be inclined to agree with you over the harshness of the penalty. I know I'll be shot down, but I have a slight problem with the penalty in Sardinia (the seat belts). Only getting a penalty after the issue was shown on Finnish TV - (Loeb's main rival just happens to be Finnish) I recognise it was a 'safety issue', but something doesn't seem quite right.

[Camelopard]

I'd be inclined to agree with you over the harshness of the penalty. I know I'll be shot down, but I have a slight problem with the penalty in Sardinia (the seat belts). Only getting a penalty after the issue was shown on Finnish TV - (Loeb's main rival just happens to be Finnish) I recognise it was a 'safety issue', but something doesn't seem quite right.

A totally unbiased person couldn't say that the penalty was only given after the issue appeared on Finnish TV, unless of course you are privy to details and information unavailable to the rest of us. You have no idea on what goes on behind the scenes, or do you? :)

Just for the record (and I admit I'm biased) the 5 minute penalty in Portugal was over the top and probably cost Gronholm any chance of the Championship that year. :)

[Juha_Koo]

I know I'll be shot down, but I have a slight problem with the penalty in Sardinia (the seat belts). Only getting a penalty after the issue was shown on Finnish TV - (Loeb's main rival just happens to be Finnish) I recognise it was a 'safety issue', but something doesn't seem quite right.

BOOM! I just shot you down. :)

That's just absurd. The footage was available to everyone, it was just one version of ISC-made day reviews. Finland was not the only country to air that blatant safety breach. It was due to the advertence of the Finnish reporters that the matter was brought up. It could have been someone else, but this time it was a Finnish person.

I'm disappointed about the penalty in Sardinia. Not only did they endangered their safety, but they also minimized the time loss. Exclusion would have been the only choice.

[MrJan]

Do we need this? Do we need really this thread?

Yes, I (probably like many others) don't want to trawl through pages and pages of childish arguments between forum members in case there is some news. A new thread brought to my attention something which I wouldn't normally have been aware of.

[OldF]

When I said free I meant free with regards to design of the suspension,

What I meant was that the design is not free.

[Daniel]

What I meant was that the design is not free.
Well yes you can only move the mounting points within a certain radius of the original points, you can only use the same type of suspension as the base car (Although you can put macpherson struts on the back), you can't use active suspension, hydraulic anti-rollbars and probably a few other things that I haven't covered but I made that point on the assumption that most people would already know that :p

[Daniel]

I'm disappointed about the penalty in Sardinia. Not only did they endangered their safety, but they also minimized the time loss. Exclusion would have been the only choice.

Just to show that I'm not some super-duper Citroen fan who doesn't want any penalties for the team I like - I have to agree. A harsh penalty is what is needed in these situations. Makes me rethink the view I had of the Penalty Markko got for wedging his spare wheel in with a rock in Rally Australia one year when he was driving for Ford.

[Helstar]

wow...that shows that MAYBE they are not cheaters but certainly are stupid...
Totally quote... with a small correction =)


Flabio was cheating. Now I wonder what the people who deem this minor infringemen as cheating would consider that? Down with Italy! Down with pasta even though noodles were first invented in the Far East! Down with the Fiat 500 I own even though it was made in Poland! While we're at it down with pizza as well! :laugh:
Can you try to be liiiittle bit less ridicoulus ? Come on, you can do it. Thanks. http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/icons/icon11.gif

[Daniel]

Totally quote... with a small correction =)


Can you try to be liiiittle bit less ridicoulus ? Come on, you can do it. Thanks. http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/icons/icon11.gif
Errrr that was the point :) My point was that just because there is one bad egg you shouldn't throw away all the other good things that a country has to offer and Italy and France both have a lot to offer :up:

Would I have bought a Fiat 500 if I was serious with what I said? ;)

[OldF]

when you consider that suspension is essentially free and manufacturers can do what they want with it

except


you can only move the mounting points within a certain radius of the original points, you can only use the same type of suspension as the base car (Although you can put macpherson struts on the back), you can't use active suspension, hydraulic anti-rollbars and probably a few other things that I haven't covered

;)

[Daniel]

except



;)

OK so yes I kinda said it in the wrong way but the fact still stands that anti-rollbar links and the like ARE free :dozey:

[Kamikaze]

Daniel, you must be in Big, big Love with Cheatroen :D

[Daniel]

Daniel, you must be in Big, big Love with Cheatroen :D
Better than being for instance a big, big idiot I guess :)

[Helstar]

Cheatroen :D
ROTFL nice one http://img.freeforumzone.it/upload/459333_ride5.gif

[Daniel]

Daniel, you must be in Big, big Love with Cheatroen :D

All I'm interested in is the truth and if you want to bicker, tell lies and ignore facts and reason then I'll leave it to you :)

P.S Helstar, are you still angry from the days where I said that Gigi wouldn't amount to anything? Well if you want to continue that discussion I'm always willing you know :)

[Helstar]

Helstar, are you still angry from the days where I said that Gigi wouldn't amount to anything? Well if you want to continue that discussion I'm always willing you know :)
We can leave Gigi in peace at his home (for the moment), I can't see a reason (other than a mysterious one in your contorted mind) to bring him in this totally OT thread.

I already said what I think about you in another thread. So I gladly quote here

[quote="Helstar"]The sad/funny thing (depends on how you see it) about Daniel is that he's not actually paid to do the "Citroen lawyer" in this forum. Otherwise I would perfectly understand his behaviour... ^^]

[Daniel]

We can leave Gigi in peace at his home (for the moment), I can't see a reason (other than a mysterious one in your contorted mind) to bring him in this totally OT thread.

I already said what I think about you in another thread. So I gladly quote here
Listen, someone has already said that they found this thread useful as they wouldn't have trawled through the misinformation and lies of the other thread so quit enforcing your own views on others, no one forced you to read this thread. All I'm interested in is the truth. All you seem to be interested in is chasing a cheap laugh with some of the less intelligent members on this forum who have no idea what cheating means and what the rules are with regards to homologation and so on.

[Kamikaze]

All you seem to be interested in is chasing a cheap laugh with some of the less intelligent members on this forum who have no idea what cheating means and what the rules are with regards to homologation and so on.

Maybe you should laugh from time to time, instead of playing the Citroen-Lawyer al the Times, making a fool yourself..
Maybe someone will take you serious then.

But till then you are what you are: just a little Cheatroen-Fanboy.... :p

[Daniel]

Maybe you should laugh from time to time, instead of playing the Citroen-Lawyer al the Times, making a fool yourself..
Maybe someone will take you serious then.

But till then you are what you are: just a little Cheatroen-Fanboy.... :p
I've reported your post as trolling because that's blatantly what it is. This is a thread to discuss the allegations of cheating against Citroen and all you're doing is making it personal and clogging the thread up with your crap and ignoring the facts.