FIA sends spy case to Court of Appeal [Archive] - Page 2

Flat.tyres

14th August 2007, 14:42

The legality or otherwise of the floor is debateable. What is not in question is the fact that, having looked at the floor, the FIA took action to close a loophole in the regulations which affected all teams.

not strictly true Arrows. the FIA have already said that such a device would be illegal.

In his letter, which also contained a diagram of McLaren's plans, Lowe wrote: "We would like to consider the installation of a mechanism on the front of our floor, consisting of springs and pivots.
http://www.autosport.com/images/upload/1174997867.gif"By a suitable arrangement and configuration of the springs (rates and preloads) within this mechanism, we will be able to control the flexibility of the bib so as to meet the requirements of the test specified in Article 3.17.4, but to otherwise allow greater flexibility at higher loads by a non-linear characteristic."
Lowe's letter was clearly aimed at clarifying whether or not the use of such a device was deemed legal if its sole intention was to get around the FIA's flexibility tests.
A week later, FIA technical delegate Charlie Whiting responded to McLaren, and in a letter also distributed to every other team, he clarified the allowed usage of such a device - and revealed that bodywork testing would be altered accordingly.
Whiting wrote: "The test described in Article 3.17.4 is intended to test the flexibility of bodywork in that area, not the resistance of a device fitted for the purpose of allowing the bodywork to move further once the maximum test load is exceeded.
"Quite clearly, any such device would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations.
"We have no objection to a device in this area which is fitted to prevent the bodywork from moving downwards, provided it is clear that it is not designed to circumvent the test described in Article 3.17.4.
"Therefore, with immediate effect, we will be testing bodywork in the relevant area with any such devices removed."

now, correct me if Im wrong but if Ferrari were using a device that allowed them to permit flexibility, then according to Charlie, it would be prohibited. l;ast time I checked, that made it illegal otherwise Ferrari wouldn't have changed it. :confused:

now ioan, explain just where Charlie and I are confusing the rules :laugh:

Flat.tyres

14th August 2007, 14:45

sorry, forgot to include the reference which is the ever reliable and referencable http://www.autosport.com

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57650

Bagwan

14th August 2007, 14:48

Bagwan

[your generally quite objective.]

So , you're implying I'm not being objective now ?

[would you say that its possible that the Ferrari (and others) floor was illegal but that it wasnt showing up in the tests.]

Had it been illegal , there simply would not have been a need for clarification .

[McLaren asked for clarification subsequent and the loophole (testing process) was changed but for the good of the sport, no retrospective action was taken? surely widespread sanctions up and down the pitlane would be destructive, wouldn't it?

not to McLaren of course as if they had of complained rather than request clarification, the FIA would have been forced to view this differently.]

Had the Ferrari been found illegal , whether through a protest or request for clarification , they would have had to take action .
Having requested a clarification , rather than protest , McLaren did not risk the cost of losing the protest .
Perhaps they knew that Ferrari had an interpretation of the rules that allowed it , and therefore knew they would lose .

[which begs the question of why Ron took the softly, softly approach rather than go for the jugular. He could have done either and still not dropped Stepney in it.]

Ron spoke "softly , softly" about a red herring .

what do you think?

I try to be objective .

14th August 2007, 16:41

not strictly true Arrows. the FIA have already said that such a device would be illegal.

now, correct me if Im wrong but if Ferrari were using a device that allowed them to permit flexibility, then according to Charlie, it would be prohibited. last time I checked, that made it illegal otherwise Ferrari wouldn't have changed it. :confused:

now ioan, explain just where Charlie and I are confusing the rules :laugh:

I'll correct you....and perhaps this line from the statement you quoted might help......

"We have no objection to a device in this area which is fitted to prevent the bodywork from moving downwards, provided it is clear that it is not designed to circumvent the test described in Article 3.17.4."

Is it clear that the spring was designed to circumvent the test?

Considering that your beloved Mclaren had information on the device, but still only asked for clarification and not a direct protest, would it not be fair to say that it was not clear and definable that the purpose of the device was to circumvent the rule?

Since Mclaren knew all about it but chose not to protest, methinks there is a very good case to say it wasn't clear.

Unless, heavens forbid, your man Ron made a mistake?

ioan

14th August 2007, 16:53

please justify that comment as to why it contradicts the illegality of the Ferrari? :confused:

The floor had passed all the test and complied with all the points of the regs you were quoting! :rolleyes:
It was so obvious! :p :

Flat.tyres

14th August 2007, 17:35

I'll correct you....and perhaps this line from the statement you quoted might help......

"We have no objection to a device in this area which is fitted to prevent the bodywork from moving downwards, provided it is clear that it is not designed to circumvent the test described in Article 3.17.4."

Is it clear that the spring was designed to circumvent the test?

Considering that your beloved Mclaren had information on the device, but still only asked for clarification and not a direct protest, would it not be fair to say that it was not clear and definable that the purpose of the device was to circumvent the rule?

Since Mclaren knew all about it but chose not to protest, methinks there is a very good case to say it wasn't clear.

Unless, heavens forbid, your man Ron made a mistake?

look, lets not beat around the bush on this.

McLaren had a design and copied it to the FIA for clarification in which they asked if it was legal.

The FIA wrote

"The test described in Article 3.17.4 is intended to test the flexibility of bodywork in that area, not the resistance of a device fitted for the purpose of allowing the bodywork to move further once the maximum test load is exceeded.
"Quite clearly, any such device would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations.

the design, supplioed by a Ferrari employee, was designed to permit flexibility and was therefore strictly prohibited by the FIA.

if Ferraris design functioned differently in any way to the one supplied by McLaren then why the f*ck did they change it.

face it, Ferrari had a sprung floor that was strictly prohibited and because McLaren asked for clarification, the FIA altered the way the floor was tested to stop the cheat.

you caqnnot argue against the facts in this one because the FIA are saying that such a device is illegal.

Flat.tyres

14th August 2007, 17:46

The floor had passed all the test and complied with all the points of the regs you were quoting! :rolleyes:
It was so obvious! :p :

well, I didn't quote the tests so lets leave that out of it.

if the floor complied with the regs, then Ferrari would still be using it, wouldn't they?

so, it didnt comply with the regs and as Charlie says, was strictly prohibited, therefor it was illegal and the testing procedures were changed to pick this up.

let me give you an example.

your sitting an exam, the moderator is looking the other way so you cop a look at a book you've sneaked in with the answer on. you dont get caught because you weren't seen.

are you guilty of cheating?

now, lets pretend one of your colleagues saw you and asked the principal if it was allowed to bring books in. The principle, realising that this pupil is suggesting someone else is, says no, it bloody well isn't allowed and I'm going to search pupils before exams in future.

see where Im going with this.

The car contraveyned the rules. it got away with it. the FIA decided to test differently to stop people breaking the rules and suddenly Ferrari change their design and are back at the same pace as the McLaren.

Mmmmmmmm ;)

Firstgear

14th August 2007, 18:35

At the next exam, the Ferrari student would bring in a magazine, and claim that technically, a magazine isn't a book so it's legal.

jas123f1

14th August 2007, 20:41

I say it, the sprung bodywork, that moved under loading to increase the performance of the Ferrari, was ILLEGAL..

No it wasn't illegal.
If it had been illegal, THEN FIA had punished Ferrari.
That easy :)

wmcot

15th August 2007, 07:48

wmcot, I believe the "logical process" Flat.tyres refers to is the one I speculated on earlier (post #191) regarding the possible actions of the "whistleblower", a part of which tamburello took exception to.

Remember, the theft of Ferrari's IP was carried out by a Ferrari employee, not McLaren. Also remember there are two distinct pieces of IP - the email highlighting the flexi-floor, then the 780-page document.

In the case of the email, we can argue about the correct courses of action that could have been taken once the contents were known by McLaren, but they are not responsible for the theft.

Once they knew of the contents of the email what were they to do? In light of the fact that it appeared Ferrari had a floor designed to get around the rules should they simply have returned the email to Ferrari and done nothing? Should they have forwarded the email to the FIA explaining how it had come into their possession? Or should they have raised the question with the FIA in the way they did, which did not (initially) break the confidence of the whistleblower?

What difference would taking one of the first two options have made to the outcome? Either way Ferrari were running a floor that was designed to get around the regulations and McLaren knew the contents whatever they did.

What exactly were McLaren guilty of with regard to the email?

Actually we seem to be talking about 2 different things. Stepney is the guilty party and his actions were those of a spy, not a whistleblower.

Since McLaren received the information in a legally questionable manner, if they wanted to be above reproach, they should have taken it to Charlie Whiting, Max Mosley, or a course steward since those would have been the proper authorities. The way it was handled by asking a "hypothetical" question about the design of floors seems that McLaren were being more devious rather than coming straight forward with the "integrity" that Ron keeps going on about.

If they had reported the email, I doubt they would have received the 780 page document (unless they, Coughlan, already had it) since they would have shown that they were not interested in receiving other team's IP.

Ron can claim his team has integrity all he wants, but the actions of his team show otherwise.

15th August 2007, 07:54

look, lets not beat around the bush on this.

McLaren had a design and copied it to the FIA for clarification in which they asked if it was legal.

face it, Ferrari had a sprung floor that was strictly prohibited and because McLaren asked for clarification, the FIA altered the way the floor was tested to stop the cheat.

you caqnnot argue against the facts in this one because the FIA are saying that such a device is illegal.

It's quite easy to argue your 'fact' because your 'fact' is not exactly a 'fact'.

The FIA have not said that the floor was illegal in Melbourne.

The 'fact' of the matter is that the results in Australia have not been protested nor have Ferrari been disqualified.

So it was either legal or it couldn't be proved to be illegal, which in case you don't have sufficient legal knowledge, equates to the same thing.

wmcot

15th August 2007, 08:05

well, I didn't quote the tests so lets leave that out of it.

if the floor complied with the regs, then Ferrari would still be using it, wouldn't they?

The floor complied with the allowable flexing as measured at Melbourne in scrutineering, hence it was legal.

The method of measurement was changed after Melbourne redefining the interpretation of the rules and causing the design of the floor to be modified. If the floor was to be used under the new rules it would be illegal.

Here's an example for you - In 1996, the rules were modified to require a V10 engine. If a team ran a V12, they would have been disqualified. Does that make all the teams running v12's in 1995 and before illegal? No. Rules change and are modified on an ongoing basis in F1. It happens all the time.

Mass dampers, rear brake steering, etc. were all declared illegal AFTER the rules were re-interpreted. Should McLaren and Renault be disqualified from all the races these "illegal" (your word, not mine) devices were used in?

Does Ron Dennis make your eyeglasses? ;)

ArrowsFA1

15th August 2007, 08:46

Stepney is the guilty party and his actions were those of a spy, not a whistleblower.
Without knowing the full story of Stepney's situation at Ferrari and what his motivations were it's difficult to know for sure. Perhaps we'll know more given time, although probably not in time for the FIA appeal hearing unfortunately. If Stepney did send the email (he has denied doing so) it's hard to imagine him doing that for reasons other than to damage Ferrari, and if we assume that was his intent then it could be argued that he succeeded to a degree.

Whatever Stepney's motivation, once the email was sent the information was out there. Did McLaren use the information to copy the design? No. Did they raise the issue with the FIA? Yes.

The way it was handled by asking a "hypothetical" question about the design of floors seems that McLaren were being more devious rather than coming straight forward with the "integrity" that Ron keeps going on about.
Perhaps, but the fact remains that the issue was raised with the FIA, and addressed. That would have happened regardless of how the email was dealt with.

If they had reported the email, I doubt they would have received the 780 page document (unless they, Coughlan, already had it) since they would have shown that they were not interested in receiving other team's IP.
That's exactly the kind of circumstantial accusation I was referring to earlier.

ArrowsFA1

15th August 2007, 09:03

The 'fact' of the matter is that the results in Australia have not been protested nor have Ferrari been disqualified.
Correct. Ferrari's floor was legal in Australia because it had been designed to get around the FIA test as it was in Australia. In the light of information that pointed this out, the test was revised.

Flat.tyres

15th August 2007, 10:50

Correct. Ferrari's floor was legal in Australia because it had been designed to get around the FIA test as it was in Australia. In the light of information that pointed this out, the test was revised.

I still cannot accept this.

If the floor was legal in Australia, it would still be legal now as the RULES have NOT been changed.

If anyone can prove to me that the rules have been changed then I will accept it was legal in Australia.

what was changed was the way the floor was tested because Charlie Whiting said that a movable floor such as the one McLaren proposed, was strictly prohibited and introduced new testing procedures to ensure people couldnt cheat in this way.

if Ferrari had a sprung floor that was strictly prohibited, then it was illegal whether or not the testing procedures identified it as such.

if Ferrari had a sprung floor that did not contravene the rules, they wouldnt have changed it, would they, as the rules have not been changed.

the only reason that Ferrari got away with this is that in the first GP, there is always a load of scrabbleing with teams trying it on and other teams asking if what the opposition is doing is legal. It always happens. there is an unwritten understanding that allows a degree of freedom and always has been. this, in my opinion, is the only reason Ferrari wasnt boll*cked but doesnt change the basic premis of illegality.

ArrowsFA1

15th August 2007, 11:08

If the floor was legal in Australia, it would still be legal now as the RULES have NOT been changed.

If anyone can prove to me that the rules have been changed then I will accept it was legal in Australia.
Do you not accept that the revised test was effectively a rule change?

donKey jote

15th August 2007, 11:18

Flat.tyres has a point :up:
A rule change is a rule change and a revised test is a revised test. Just as a clarification of the rules is a clarification of the rules. :erm:
Donkey's verdict: illegal :D

Flat.tyres

15th August 2007, 11:33

Do you not accept that the revised test was effectively a rule change?

no I dont.

lets take a speeding car then.

the law (rules) say you cannot speed over 30 in a 30 zone. the current test is a static camera or mobile units. if you do over 30, are you breaking the rules? Yes or No?

so, to stop people exploiting this loophole, ie speeding when there is no test in place, the testing procedure is changed so that a GPS system is fitted in every car to monitor if you speed.

the rule is still the same. you get penalty points and a fine if you speed but just the way you are tested has been altered to stop people getting away with it.

see what I mean?

ioan

15th August 2007, 12:30

Do you not accept that the revised test was effectively a rule change?

If it's about Ferrari than even white is black for some people! :D

ioan

15th August 2007, 12:32

Flat.tyres

15th August 2007, 12:43

No I don't! :D :p :

I mean how do you know that someone was speeding before you change the testing procedure?

No offence but your arguments are getting dumber and dumber with every post. :\

my arguement is watertight. you havent explained why, if the device was legal, they changed it and suffered a performance drop.

thats because you cant without admitting it was, as the FIA said, strictly prohibited under the rules.

No offence, but your steadfast denial to accept black and white, incontrvertible proof, makes you look unreasonable :p :

Flat.tyres

15th August 2007, 12:45

If it's about Ferrari than even white is black for some people! :D

totally agree. please see last post :D

Bagwan

15th August 2007, 13:44

76let me give you an example.

your sitting an exam, the moderator is looking the other way so you cop a look at a book you've sneaked in with the answer on. you dont get caught because you weren't seen.

are you guilty of cheating?

now, lets pretend one of your colleagues saw you and asked the principal if it was allowed to bring books in. The principle, realising that this pupil is suggesting someone else is, says no, it bloody well isn't allowed and I'm going to search pupils before exams in future.

see where Im going with this.

The car contraveyned the rules. it got away with it. the FIA decided to test differently to stop people breaking the rules and suddenly Ferrari change their design and are back at the same pace as the McLaren.

Mmmmmmmm ;)

As it happens , I think your example is pretty good .
If a student is found with , say , 780 pages of unbound text , it isn't a book .
Therefore , if the rules state that you can't bring books in , the principal should be obligated to rewrite the rules stating that no books or unbound paper is allowed into the exam room .
Certainly , in the case of the school , we might see the student forced to re-take the exam , but this is F1 , where the letter is followed .

Just as the fiddle brake was clarified as an element used for steering the car , the sprung floor was shown to be more likely used for allowing the floor to flex up than keep it down .

Both were banned , with no retro-active punnishment .

ioan

15th August 2007, 14:12

my arguement is watertight. you havent explained why, if the device was legal, they changed it and suffered a performance drop.

thats because you cant without admitting it was, as the FIA said, strictly prohibited under the rules.

No offence, but your steadfast denial to accept black and white, incontrvertible proof, makes you look unreasonable :p :

Everyone but you is saying it was white and therefor legal still you won't take it! :rolleyes:
Even if your name was Ron Dennis it would have got in by now!

Flat.tyres

15th August 2007, 14:35

As it happens , I think your example is pretty good .
If a student is found with , say , 780 pages of unbound text , it isn't a book .
Therefore , if the rules state that you can't bring books in , the principal should be obligated to rewrite the rules stating that no books or unbound paper is allowed into the exam room .
Certainly , in the case of the school , we might see the student forced to re-take the exam , but this is F1 , where the letter is followed .

Just as the fiddle brake was clarified as an element used for steering the car , the sprung floor was shown to be more likely used for allowing the floor to flex up than keep it down .

Both were banned , with no retro-active punnishment .

sorry, in an earlier post you asked me a question as to if I thought you werent being objective and I didnt respond. I did not imply that and am sorry if you thought I did. It was, at face value, a statement that you seem pretty objective.

if we want to talk about the pedal, it might be appropiate to take it to the History forum as I will need to do a bit of digging around and ask a few questions about the laws at the time and the ruleing. Im not dissagreeing with you but claiming ignorance of the facts.

however, back to this case :)

Flat.tyres

15th August 2007, 14:37

Everyone but you is saying it was white and therefor legal still you won't take it! :rolleyes:
Even if your name was Ron Dennis it would have got in by now!

please can you back up that everyone was legal apart from me.

Ron Dennis said it was illegal. Charlie Whiting said if there was a device such as this it would be illegal and Ferrari changed the design of their car to remove it.

however, you and some Ferrari fans claim it was legal. :p :

15th August 2007, 15:22

Charlie Whiting said if there was a device such as this it would be illegal and Ferrari changed the design of their car to remove it.

however, you and some Ferrari fans claim it was legal. :p :

Show me where Charlie Whiting names the Ferrari device as the one he is talking about?

The quote you've given refers to Mclaren's request for clarification about a design they submitted. Ferrari were not mentioned in that quote.

By that fact alone, Charlie Whiting has made no reference to the Ferrari floor fitted at Melbourne. Therefore the Ferrari floor was legal and passed the required tests at the time.

The only way you can claim that the Charlie Whiting quote you have given is relevant to Ferrari is if the Mclaren design was an exact copy of the Ferrari one....which, if that were the case, would hole the 'Mclaren Are innocent' campaign well below the water-line.

15th August 2007, 15:24

Ron Dennis said it was illegal.

Oh well, must be true then.

You seriously expect us to believe that if Ron Dennis knew the Ferrari was illegal he would not of protested it?

Bagwan

15th August 2007, 17:04

sorry, in an earlier post you asked me a question as to if I thought you werent being objective and I didnt respond. I did not imply that and am sorry if you thought I did. It was, at face value, a statement that you seem pretty objective.

if we want to talk about the pedal, it might be appropiate to take it to the History forum as I will need to do a bit of digging around and ask a few questions about the laws at the time and the ruleing. Im not dissagreeing with you but claiming ignorance of the facts.

however, back to this case :)

That 3rd pedal was photographed by a journalist , and investigated by the FIA as a result .
The reason for the pedal was to brake the inside wheel , aiding steering into the corner . As such , it was clearly against the rules , but not strictly prohibitted by them , and therefore the rules were re-written to outlaw such practice .
No retro-active punishment was issued , as , despite it's being against the spirit of the rules , it was not stated clearly as illegal .

There were people just as upset then as now , but , simply , it was and is the only fair way to look at it .

icsunonove

15th August 2007, 17:11

Everyone but you is saying it was white and therefor legal still you won't take it! :rolleyes:
Even if your name was Ron Dennis it would have got in by now!

It seems to me this issue is the same as that of the Michelin tyres that Ferrari protested a few years back. Both passed the tests in place to determine conformance with the regulations until the FIA changed the measurement and in both cases no retrospective punishment was applied. Funny though, IIRC at the time you and a number of other Ferrari supporters argued that the Michelin tyres were illegal. Just to be clear, are you now saying that they weren't?

Mysterious Rock

15th August 2007, 19:11

Surely its only wrong if you get caught? Then there is the evidence to prove its illegal.

ioan

15th August 2007, 19:28

It seems to me this issue is the same as that of the Michelin tyres that Ferrari protested a few years back. Both passed the tests in place to determine conformance with the regulations until the FIA changed the measurement and in both cases no retrospective punishment was applied. Funny though, IIRC at the time you and a number of other Ferrari supporters argued that the Michelin tyres were illegal. Just to be clear, are you now saying that they weren't?

That was a case that set a precedent and I might say that it's not a bad thing that the FIA sticks to their guns since then ( Renault MDS in 2006 and the floor problem at the start of this season).

wmcot

15th August 2007, 19:42

no I dont.

lets take a speeding car then.

the law (rules) say you cannot speed over 30 in a 30 zone. the current test is a static camera or mobile units. if you do over 30, are you breaking the rules? Yes or No?

so, to stop people exploiting this loophole, ie speeding when there is no test in place, the testing procedure is changed so that a GPS system is fitted in every car to monitor if you speed.

the rule is still the same. you get penalty points and a fine if you speed but just the way you are tested has been altered to stop people getting away with it.

see what I mean?

If you don't accept the change in rules for the Ferrari floor, then you must not accept the rules change for mass dampers, flex wings, McLaren brake steering, grooved tires, V8 engines, V10 engines, 19000 rpm limits, ad infinitum. These were ALL rule changes or reinterpretations of the rules. If you base legality on TODAY'S rules, then every V10 car, every V12 car, every car that ran on slicks was ILLEGAL.

Some see things as they really are - others only see what they want to see as long as it's in their team's (McLaren's) interest...

wmcot

15th August 2007, 19:46

no I dont.

lets take a speeding car then.

the law (rules) say you cannot speed over 30 in a 30 zone. the current test is a static camera or mobile units. if you do over 30, are you breaking the rules? Yes or No?

so, to stop people exploiting this loophole, ie speeding when there is no test in place, the testing procedure is changed so that a GPS system is fitted in every car to monitor if you speed.

the rule is still the same. you get penalty points and a fine if you speed but just the way you are tested has been altered to stop people getting away with it.

see what I mean?

Your example is flawed a bit. I'll make it a bit closer to reality.

The zone you mentioned is posted at 35. As long as you don't exceed 35, there is no penalty. You can safely cruise at 34.5 with no problem.

One day, the speed on the road is lowered to 30. Does that mean you were speeding when you drove at 34.5 in the past?

ArrowsFA1

16th August 2007, 08:11

Hendersen

16th August 2007, 09:11

Isn't what Ferrari did the equivalent of developing and using a means to break the speed limit while fooling the measuring device into thinking they were driving within the limit? :dozey: :p

More like playing poker and the dealer calls jacks-wild. You play according to the rules and lay down your 5 kings, three true kings and 2 jacks, but then the dealer says " oh, not just any jack-- only one eyed jacks are wild" You only have three pair.

ArrowsFA1

16th August 2007, 09:46

Ferrari's floor strikes me as similar to the issue of 'ride-height' in the early 80's. Following the banning of skirts teams were searching for ways to recover lost downforce. Rock hard suspension was one way to close the gap between sidepods and the ground, but in time FISA (FIA) specified the gap that was allowed. Cars were measured in the pits, but clever minds like Gordon Murray at Brabham realised there was no way to measure the gap when the cars were on track. So the Brabhams were equipped with a switch that kept the cars at the required height when measured, but which the driver could flick to another position that lowered the car, and so provided more downforce and grip, when on track.

These kind of things have always gone on, and the governing body is always forced to react. It is simply not possible for the FIA to legislate for everything that the teams may do to "circumvent" the rules, or at least test the very limits of the rules.

16th August 2007, 13:28

Isn't what Ferrari did the equivalent of developing and using a means to break the speed limit while fooling the measuring device into thinking they were driving within the limit? :dozey: :p

The defence for that argument is straight-forward and has many precedents.

It could be argued that the enforcing authorities equipment in this case was incorrectly calibrated at the time....after all, the authorities had to change the testing method.....which would result in any speeding charge, or let's say sprung-floor charge, not making it into court.

The FIA, in the same way they dealt with the 2003 Michelin and 2006 Mass-Damper issues, evidently realised that, as too presumably did the lawyers down in Woking, hence no official protest but merely a request for clarification.

Flat.tyres

16th August 2007, 14:35

Your example is flawed a bit. I'll make it a bit closer to reality.

The zone you mentioned is posted at 35. As long as you don't exceed 35, there is no penalty. You can safely cruise at 34.5 with no problem.

One day, the speed on the road is lowered to 30. Does that mean you were speeding when you drove at 34.5 in the past?

totally disagree.

using your example, the limit always has been and still is 35. the FIA have said that if anyone were to exceed that speed limit, it would be strictly prohibited and put in a measure to ensure people will get caught red handed if they drive over 35 in the future.

I think some people are argueing just for the hell of it. The facts are that the FIA said that such a device would be strictly prohibited if used and Ferrari changed it. end of story.

Im not calling for Ferrari to be penalised or anything but merely made the point that people claiming that Ron was lying when he said it was an illegal device were themselves wrong.

end of story, its all there in black and white from the FIA. argue with Charlie Whiting, not me because Ive posted the rules which say that such a device would be illegal and the evidence from the FIA confirming it would be.

I really dont see how people can argue without refuting the evidence with facts.

16th August 2007, 16:07

I really dont see how people can argue without refuting the evidence with facts.

Fact 1 - The Ferrari F2007 was not excluded from the Australian GP as it complied with all the requirements of scrutineering and FIA regulation tests set down by the governing body at the time.

Fact 2 - Mclaren only asked for clarification of a regulation. They did not protest the legality of the F2007. See Fact 3

Fact 3- The device only became illegal after the FIA changed the way they measured flexibility. In the eyes of any justice system in the civilised world, until that point in time it was legal, hence no official protest of the Australian GP result by Mclaren.

Fact 4 - Ron Dennis later claimed the car was illegal, when it evidently was not as it abided with the regulations in place at the time. Therefore, Ron Dennis's statement is false.

Fact 4 - Mclaren gained information on the Ferrari spring design, which they then used as a basis for the own design to present to the FIA, from an unauthorised and illegal source.

Fact 5 - Charlie Whiting's comments are aimed solely in reply to Mclaren's proposed design which, as any lawyer would point out, was supplied along with a leading statement pointing out that the design was aimed at breaking the regulations. A leading statement is inadmissable in a court and would be struck from the record.

Fact 6 - Charlie Whiting makes no reference to Ferrari.

Those are facts.

16th August 2007, 16:19

totally disagree.

using your example, the limit always has been and still is 35. the FIA have said that if anyone were to exceed that speed limit, it would be strictly prohibited and put in a measure to ensure people will get caught red handed if they drive over 35 in the future.

I think some people are argueing just for the hell of it. The facts are that the FIA said that such a device would be strictly prohibited if used and Ferrari changed it. end of story.

That's pure baloney.

The official authority would have to prove that the speed limit had been broken previously, which it could not do. No evidence of an illegal act could be brought to the attention of the court and the case would be instantly dismissed.

You are arguing emotionally and with a degree of logic, but not in the only terms that are relevant, which are legal ones.

The FIA said that such a device, if used, would be prohibited from the Malaysian GP onwards. That is a fact. However, they made no reference to the devices being used at the Australian GP as being illegal.

Using the FIA's statement post Australian GP as a 'fact' regarding the legality of the F2007 in Melbourne is not a fact.

That is a wholely misleading statement and is most definitely not a fact.

At the moment, you would be dismissed as an unrelaible witness or even of being in contempt of court.

I would strongly advise you to get a legal defence team and answer simply 'no comment' from now on.

tinchote

16th August 2007, 16:49

Isn't what Ferrari did the equivalent of developing and using a means to break the speed limit while fooling the measuring device into thinking they were driving within the limit? :dozey: :p

No. The difference is that in the speed limit case, you post the allowed speed, and then use a device to measure it. On the other hand, in F1 all body regulations are given in terms of measurements: there is no conceptual definition, and a separate measurement to see if the concept is respected.

In the particular case we are talking about, if you read all of the technical F1 regulations, you won't find the words "flat floor" on them.

wmcot

17th August 2007, 06:08

It's beginning to be obvious that Flat.tyres and ArrowsFA1 are either trolling, immensely bored, or absolute worshippers of Ron Dennis who would sacrifice their first born to him if he asked (no, make that hinted.)

No matter how many arguments are placed before them, and no matter how things are simplified, they refuse to see things as they are.

McLaren have no further problem with the handling of Ferrari's floor.

The FIA have no further problem with the handling of Ferrari's floor.

No other F1 team has any problem with the handling of Ferrari's floor.

Only Flat.tyres and ArrowsFA1 seem to have a problem with Ferrari's floor as it existed 8 races ago. Time has moved on and left you two behind. Now I'll do the same. If I get bored, I'll come back in 2010 or 2011 and you will still be carrying on the same argument.

ArrowsFA1

17th August 2007, 09:04

It's beginning to be obvious that Flat.tyres and ArrowsFA1 are either trolling, immensely bored, or absolute worshippers of Ron Dennis who would sacrifice their first born to him if he asked (no, make that hinted.)

Only Flat.tyres and ArrowsFA1 seem to have a problem with Ferrari's floor as it existed 8 races ago. Time has moved on and left you two behind. Now I'll do the same. If I get bored, I'll come back in 2010 or 2011 and you will still be carrying on the same argument.
:laugh:

You should re-read my posts, but I agree with you that time has moved on. The issue of Ferrari's floor has been, gone, been dealt with. It's a non-issue. The only reason it's being argued over here ad nauseam is that it's a stick to beat McLaren with in the context of everything else that's going on.

Specifically, the argument is made that McLaren should have passed the information contained in the email concerning Ferrari's floor, sent (allegedly) by Stepney, to the FIA. They did, but they did so without revealing the source of the information.

From there, the argument goes, as McLaren used information provided by a Ferrari employee once then of course they would do the same again. So when Coughlan was found in possession of the 780-page document obviously McLaren looked at it, used it, and some say even built a Ferrari F2007 :laugh:

The eagerness with which some jump on circumstantial evidence and unfounded allegations, while making vitriolic personal attacks on Ron Dennis, is absurd.

I can certainly see why Ferrari object to their IP being in the possession of a McLaren employee, but they should be looking closer to home for how this whole situation started.

Roll on the 13th September :rolleyes:

Hendersen

17th August 2007, 09:36

:laugh:

Specifically, the argument is made that McLaren should have passed the information contained in the email concerning Ferrari's floor, sent (allegedly) by Stepney, to the FIA. They did, but they did so without revealing the source of the information.

The hell they did. Do you just make this crap up assuming no one knows or is it a british thing where you all just repeat lies over and and over hoping they stick?

ArrowsFA1

17th August 2007, 09:52

The hell they did.
Oh really.

The FIA has modified its bodywork tests to ensure a floor mounting system used primarily by Ferrari does not circumvent the regulations, autosport.com can reveal, after McLaren asked the governing body for a clarification over the matter.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57650 - Tuesday, March 27th 2007

McLaren asked the governing body for a clarification over the matter means McLaren passed the information contained in the email concerning Ferrari's floor to the FIA.

Hendersen

17th August 2007, 10:22

Oh really.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57650 - Tuesday, March 27th 2007

McLaren asked the governing body for a clarification over the matter means McLaren passed the information contained in the email concerning Ferrari's floor to the FIA.

Indeed. But by asking for a "clarification", they did not report that someone SENT them information from ferrari. They did not have to mention names, but they should have reported that someone was leaking such information. You know exactly why they would not have, because they are dirty cheats that didn't want to burn up any bridges, whether those bridges were illegal or not they thought they would never have to worry about. Now they do. Quit making it sound like they forwarded the email and deleted the name, which is what they should have done.

Flat.tyres

17th August 2007, 10:30

It's beginning to be obvious that Flat.tyres and ArrowsFA1 are either trolling, immensely bored, or absolute worshippers of Ron Dennis who would sacrifice their first born to him if he asked (no, make that hinted.)

I wont even bother answering such a childish statement when all Ive posted is facts.

No matter how many arguments are placed before them, and no matter how things are simplified, they refuse to see things as they are.

McLaren have no further problem with the handling of Ferrari's floor.

The FIA have no further problem with the handling of Ferrari's floor.

No other F1 team has any problem with the handling of Ferrari's floor.you are quite wrong. I had no further problem with the Ferrari floor once it was changed to comply with the rules as you say. i have never called for Ferrari to be penalised but merely pointed out that the Rules havent changed but a testing procedure has been modified to stop people breaking the rules.

I have no real problem with this, have you?

Only Flat.tyres and ArrowsFA1 seem to have a problem with Ferrari's floor as it existed 8 races ago. Time has moved on and left you two behind. Now I'll do the same. If I get bored, I'll come back in 2010 or 2011 and you will still be carrying on the same argument.
time has most definatly moved on. This was a small matter that needed clarification after the first race as these things usually do. as Arrows says, without the further illegal activities of Stepney and Coghlan, this would have been a non event but now, people are trying to turn Mclaren into the bad guys for asking for clarification on a device that the FIA has stated would be illegal.

Does anyone deny any of this or can we move on?

ArrowsFA1

17th August 2007, 10:36

Quit making it sound like they forwarded the email and deleted the name, which is what they should have done.
There's little or no difference between what you're saying McLaren should have done, and what they did do.

Hendersen

17th August 2007, 11:08

There's little or no difference between what you're saying McLaren should have done, and what they did do.

Huh? you are a mod here? You ARE trolling. What the hell, dude? It's perfectly obvious they acted in a way to protect themselves from being suspect of having information they should not have had, that they in fact illegally had on top of trying to hold on to the secrecy of their spy whom provided it..

ArrowsFA1

17th August 2007, 11:37

Huh? you are a mod here? You ARE trolling. What the hell, dude? It's perfectly obvious they acted in a way to protect themselves from being suspect of having information they should not have had, that they in fact illegally had on top of trying to hold on to the secrecy of their spy whom provided it..
So had they forwarded the email and deleted the name, which is what you say they should have done, what difference would that have made to the outcome?

The information would still have got to the FIA. The FIA would still have acted. Stepney's name would still have been kept out of it.

You say that McLaren "should not have had" the email. Well, if a Ferrari employee had not sent it in the first place Coughlan would not have had it in his inbox.

You say that McLaren had the email "illegally". Did they steal it? Did they break into Maranello under cover of the night and escape with the email? Did they phone a Ferrari employee and ask for it? Nope. None of the above. A Ferrari employee sent it to a McLaren employee.

As for the "secrecy of their spy" - That's exactly the kind of circumstantial accusation I was referring to earlier. There are lots of them thrown about regularly as if they were facts in this case.

Flat.tyres

17th August 2007, 11:41

why bother Arrorw. the bloke has more flames than Burger king.

ioan

17th August 2007, 11:44

Some people are a bit touchy around here because the "McLaren truth" it's not as obvious as they thought it is! :D

ioan

17th August 2007, 11:46

Did they phone a Ferrari employee and ask for it?

It might be! :p :

Hendersen

17th August 2007, 11:52

So had they forwarded the email and deleted the name, which is what you say they should have done, what difference would that have made to the outcome?

Uhh, it would have went a long way in clearing Mclaren of wrong doing. Instead, it now looks like they are rotten to the core and were being purposefully deceitful to the FIA. And I never said that's what they should have done, you were trying to spin the entire scenario as if that what actually happened. Do not project your BS on me.

The information would still have got to the FIA. The FIA would still have acted. Stepney's name would still have been kept out of it.

You say that McLaren "should not have had" the email. Well, if a Ferrari employee had not sent it in the first place Coughlan would not have had it in his inbox.

Actually, Ferrari had nothing to be concerned about as far as legality was concerned. They were not the ones with illegal info on their computers. Mclaren was.

You say that McLaren had the email "illegally". Did they steal it? Did they break into Maranello under cover of the night and escape with the email? Did they phone a Ferrari employee and ask for it? Nope. None of the above. A Ferrari employee sent it to a McLaren employee.

It's not different than stolen property. Stop with your useless canards and BS attempts at rationalzing. It doesn't how they got it. They could bought it at a rummage sale. Having it is illegal.

As for the "secrecy of their spy" - That's exactly the kind of circumstantial accusation I was referring to earlier. There are lots of them thrown about regularly as if they were facts in this case.

Why else didn't Mclaren immediately contact Ferrari that they had a leaker and contact the FIA and tell them the situation in full? Mclaren is not some 2 year old that doesn't quite understand the rules of grown ups. They know god damn well what's going on and when/if they could be held responsible for something. Hopefully it blows up in their obviously cheating faces.

ArrowsFA1

17th August 2007, 11:59

And I never said that's what they should have done...
So who exactly posted this :confused: :crazy:

Quit making it sound like they forwarded the email and deleted the name, which is what they should have done.

Hendersen

17th August 2007, 12:02

So who exactly posted this :confused: :crazy:

Complete trolling. That was a sarcastic post directed at your BS comments about how you were trying to make the scenario sound. It was not my suggestion they do such, you were suggesting that's what they actually did..

Flat.tyres

17th August 2007, 12:07

Complete trolling. That was a sarcastic directed at your BS comments about how you were trying to make the scenario sound. It was not my suggestion they do such, you were suggesting that's what they actually did, nor should have done.

like when you claimed that there has never been a contested pit lane place and a load of other BS (as you put it).

thims for beddy byes :z :arrows:

Hendersen

17th August 2007, 12:29

like when you claimed that there has never been a contested pit lane place and a load of other BS (as you put it).

thims for beddy byes :z :arrows:

I said I never saw one like alonso turning the pitlane into a drag race. Must forgive me for not watching every practice run, qualifying lap, and race. Sometimes we don't even get GPs in the united states, and sometimes they are several hours delayed( and unless something controversial happened, why watch). Stay on topic and quit trolling like your pal.

Flat.tyres

17th August 2007, 12:36

I said I never saw one like alonso turning the pitlane into a drag race. Must forgive me for not watching every practice run, qualifying lap, and race. Sometimes we don't even get GPs in the united states, and sometimes they are several hours delayed( and unless something controversial happened, why watch). Stay on topic and quit trolling like your pal.

hey, ignorance is no crime fella but dont try and use it as an excuse :p :

some of us like F1 for the sport, not the controvercy but smashes and crashes are appealing I suppose to a particular type of fan.

fortunatly, I know your not typical of the majority of American F1 fans who are very knowledgeable (if sometimes misguided about JV Fousto :laugh: ) so dont let your inferiority syndrome worry you ;)

ArrowsFA1

17th August 2007, 12:52

It was not my suggestion they do such...
Ok, I can read it that way.

Whether McLaren mentioned the source of the information or not does not alter the fact that there was a question over the legality of the floor which was a perfectly legitimate one to raise, regardless of the subsequent outcome.

The anger of Ferrari fans does seem rather misdirected. It's the information that did the (perceived) damage to their team, not the way it got to the FIA.

Hendersen

17th August 2007, 13:06

Ok, I can read it that way.

Whether McLaren mentioned the source of the information or not does not alter the fact that there was a question over the legality of the floor which was a perfectly legitimate one to raise, regardless of the subsequent outcome..

Nope. But would the questions have been raised had they not been given it? That's the question, because if not, then it could be argued in a court of law that the actions of Mclaren were 1. based on illegal information, and 2. compromised the standings of a competitior(ferrari). They may even have a case in a international court law on a civil level that could financially ruin Mclaren if Ferrari doesn't win the WDC. I'm sure they can project damages in car sales in losing versus winning years.

The anger of Ferrari fans does seem rather misdirected. It's the information that did the (perceived) damage to their team, not the way it got to the FIA.

Huh? More like the Mclaren fans seem rather misdirected in general at whats going on on the planet Earth.

ArrowsFA1

17th August 2007, 13:19

would the questions have been raised had they not been given it?
Given Stepney's view (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61285) - "You only needed to take a look at the car to realize what was wrong, it was obvious for people who work in F1. At McLaren they knew without the need for whistle blowing" - the answer to that is yes, questions would have been raised regardless.

Hendersen

17th August 2007, 13:32

Given Stepney's view (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61285) - "You only needed to take a look at the car to realize what was wrong, it was obvious for people who work in F1. At McLaren they knew without the need for whistle blowing" - the answer to that is yes, questions would have been raised regardless.

Ya, I'm sure he'd going to have an entirely imprtial expert opinion on the matters.

ioan

17th August 2007, 13:42

Flat.tyres

17th August 2007, 13:49

Than why the need to send them the info?!

ask the Ferrari employee. he's the one that committed the offence

ArrowsFA1

17th August 2007, 13:52

It's not surprising that Stepney's opinion should be dismissed out of hand, but as early as the 2006 Brazilian GP the issue of flexible aerodynamics and the spring mounting on the Ferrari 248 F1's front splitter was being raised, and illustrated, by Craig Scarborough, a journalist writing in Autosport's online journal.

For those who know what to look at, and where to look, it's not too hard to see what other teams are up to. It's known that teams hire photographers to take photos of developments up and down the pitlane for goodness sake, and that kind of thing is nothing new. Buy the current issue of MotorSport magazine (http://www.motorsportmagazine.co.uk/) and you'll be able to read all about "some of the past’s murkier dealings".

markabilly

17th August 2007, 14:26

Flat.tyres

17th August 2007, 14:31

17th August 2007, 14:50

The anger of Ferrari fans does seem rather misdirected. It's the information that did the (perceived) damage to their team, not the way it got to the FIA.

The anger of Ferrari fans is misdirected?

Yeah, right.

The way the information got to the FIA is very much the issue here, as it blows a great big gaping hole in the idea/argument that Mclaren did not gain from having further information (the 780 page document) about Ferrari given to them.

We are asked to believe that a team which used illicitly obtained information in March then did not do the same in April/May.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

Yes, as a Ferrari fan I'm pissed off with Stepney, but he will be dealt with in the courts. Mclaren, on the other hand, who have been complicit with Stepney's illegal actions and allowed them to continue, we are asked to believe are really Saints.

Therefore our anger is not misdirected at all, it's very well aimed at Mclaren and their apologists.

ArrowsFA1

17th August 2007, 14:51

Mclaren was imply trying to have their cake and eat it too, and they got caught in the act, just as they have on several occaisions this year...problem is that we have a "moderator" who can not accept it, so..........so much for being even handed in this matter or accepting that which can not be denied as someone might expect from a moderator rather than the whims and emotions of favoritism
Instead of denying the right of people to have an opinion that disagrees with your own, how about refuting some of the points made with a good argument that can be (to coin a phrase from ioan) backed up, and contribute to the discussion constructively.

Just as an example, here's how it could work:

Hendersen asked the question would the questions have been raised had McLaren not been given the information. Stepney has said "You only needed to take a look at the car to realize what was wrong, it was obvious for people who work in F1", Craig Scarborough has illustrated how it is possible to get information about what teams are up to, and it's well known that F1 teams employ photographers to get this kind of information.

Are you able to refute that McLaren could, and probably would, have known about Ferrari's floor without the email provided by the Ferrari employee?

17th August 2007, 14:58

Are you able to refute that McLaren could, and probably would, have known about Ferrari's floor without the email provided by the Ferrari employee?

Had Ron Dennis not already confirmed that Stepney supplied the info, then yours would be a reasonable argument......

Unfortunately for your argument, Ron Dennis has confirmed that Stepney gave them the information, which is not very good either for Stepney or for anyone using Stepney's statements as credible evidence.

The head of the team you are defending has already stated that the info came from Stepney and not from his own engineers. That's pretty clear evidence.

So, while it should have been possible for Mclaren to have figured it out themselves and for that to have been the source of their request for clarification, it most obviously was not.

Unless you believe Stepney and not Dennis, which doesn't do much for your arguments that Mclaren are innocent.

So, yes, your contention is easily refuted.

17th August 2007, 15:03

ArrowsFA1

17th August 2007, 15:04

The anger of Ferrari fans is misdirected?
No, seems rather misdirected in my opinion.

I didn't say the way the information got to the FIA was not an issue, just that it was the information itself which caused a problem for Ferrari, and that information came from one of their own employees.

Any link between the email and the 780-page document is, to date, the subject of speculation. "Pull the other one, it's got bells on it" is not an argument that says otherwise.

Unfortunately for your argument, Ron Dennis has confirmed that Stepney gave them the information, which is not very good either for Stepney or for anyone using Stepney's statements as credible evidence.
How does you believing Ron Dennis in this instance make any difference. Stepney has said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61285) "It's not true that I revealed those irregularities." So you pays your money, you takes your choice. Neither of us know who sent the email, but it's safe to say it was sent by a Ferrari employee.

I, on the other hand, shall never tire of it, for it's both entertaining and a requirement of those who hold higher office in the Church of Enzo to defeat the infidels.
Participating in discussions that are seen in those terms by some is why I'm losing my patience.

markabilly

17th August 2007, 15:20

Instead of denying the right of people to have an opinion that disagrees with your own, how about refuting some of the points made with a good argument that can be (to coin a phrase from ioan) backed up, and contribute to the discussion constructively.

Just as an example, here's how it could work:

Hendersen asked the question would the questions have been raised had McLaren not been given the information. Stepney has said "You only needed to take a look at the car to realize what was wrong, it was obvious for people who work in F1", Craig Scarborough has illustrated how it is possible to get information about what teams are up to, and it's well known that F1 teams employ photographers to get this kind of information.

Are you able to refute that McLaren could, and probably would, have known about Ferrari's floor without the email provided by the Ferrari employee?

One can SPECULATE all day long about how it could have happenned and then try to refute this endless speculation about possibilities, chasing one's tail for a million years and never refute all the possibilities of gee, could be it was this or that, and when NS says it was obvious, gee, why did not the inspectors see it...and of course a thief who is trying to save himself from the gallows, is alawys to be trusted...so on....

Your last comment/question was demonstrates why mere speculation proves nothing: Are you able to refute that Mclaren could and would have known..without the email...is no different than saying the FIA could and would have known without the "aid" from Maclaren....or the fact that I shot him in the head, but sooner or later he was going to die anyway, so I should not be held accountable

your argument is the old political excersise of "plausible denialbility": will our denial be plausible, rather than is it TRUE

But none of that is what occurred, and in this case, the issue is not could it have happened differently if the facts were different, but what SHOULD have happened and what DID happen in reality

So by refusing to accept that which is known, you demonstrate my point so very well....

17th August 2007, 15:26

No, seems rather misdirected in my opinion.

I didn't say the way the information got to the FIA was not an issue, just that it was the information itself which caused a problem for Ferrari, and that information came from one of their own employees.

Any link between the email and the 780-page document is, to date, the subject of speculation. "Pull the other one, it's got bells on it" is not an argument that says otherwise.

It very much is an argument that says otherwise. Mclaren themselves set a precedent which, given that, makes a strong argument that having done it once they would do it again.

It is a fact confirmed by Ron Dennis that the email information was used by Mclaren.

Yet Mclaren then claim that they did not look at the 780 page document.

Our argument is that, given what they did with the email information, that is both difficult to accept, unlikely and doubtful.

Mclaren claim that they advised Coughlan to get rid of it, which is in itself the incorrect thing to have done as they should have reported it and not kept quiet. The FIA have already found them guilty of being in possession of documents they shouldn't have had.

To ask us to believe the integrity of Mclaren when

A) They used illegally gained information and have confirmed they did so.
B) They kept quiet about having access to the 780 page document

is beyond reasonable doubt.

17th August 2007, 15:27

Participating in discussions that are seen in those terms by some is why I'm losing my patience.

Try getting a sense of humour then.

Flat.tyres

17th August 2007, 15:29

Your last comment/question was demonstrates why mere speculation proves nothing: Are you able to refute that Mclaren could and would have known..without the email...is no different than saying the FIA could and would have known without the "aid" from Maclaren....or the fact that I shot him in the head, but sooner or later he was going to die anyway, so I should not be held accountable
.
.
.
.

So by refusing to accept that which is known, you demonstrate my point so very well....

your first point is valid. because Stepney (allegedly) sent the email blowing the whistle on an illegal floor, there is no way to prove that McLaren would have discovered it themselves

.
.
.
.
.

but, as Arrows pointed out, it was a topic for discussion way before this between journalists so the likelyhood of it being questioned would have been high wouldn't you say?

is that fairer?

17th August 2007, 15:36

How does you believing Ron Dennis in this instance make any difference. Stepney has said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61285) "It's not true that I revealed those irregularities." So you pays your money, you takes your choice.

It makes a huge difference to the quality of your argument, taking it from plausible to self-contradictory and self-defeating.

I guess those law books I recommended never left the library shelves.

17th August 2007, 15:42

it was a topic for discussion way before this between journalists so the likelyhood of it being questioned would have been high wouldn't you say?

is that fairer?

No, because of this.....

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61260

Where Ron Dennis states, and I would like to quote for the benifit of the jury....

"Were it not for Mr Stepney drawing this illegal device to the attention of McLaren ... there is every reason to suppose that Ferrari would have continued to race with an illegal car,"

If Ron himself says that there is every reason to suppose that Ferrari would have continued, then your claim that there was a likelihood of it being questioned without the email seems very weak.

I'd be interested to know how you can claim that, given what Ron has said, unless you don't believe Ron Dennis is being truthful?

markabilly

17th August 2007, 15:46

Huh? you are a mod here? You ARE trolling. What the hell, dude? It's perfectly obvious they acted in a way to protect themselves from being suspect of having information they should not have had, that they in fact illegally had on top of trying to hold on to the secrecy of their spy whom provided it..

The moderator here does not like this at all, and sidetracks the discussion into the refutation of possibilities

It is all very simple: What Mclaren was trying to do was NOT burn the source of their information..that lttle piece of info may have been something so obvious, that sooner or later, someone else like the FIA was going to catch it....but why burn your source?

Well you do it if you are honest and have no use for such stuff,

and you do NOT do it, if you are hoping that something much better will pop out in the future and do not want to close the door on such future possibilities

(and their own clandestine activites demonstrate their knowledge of the legality of how they were acting and their intent to take advantage of the situation in the future)

Flat.tyres

17th August 2007, 15:50

No, because of this.....

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61260

Where Ron Dennis states, and I would like to quote for the benifit of the jury....

"Were it not for Mr Stepney drawing this illegal device to the attention of McLaren ... there is every reason to suppose that Ferrari would have continued to race with an illegal car,"

If Ron himself says that there is every reason to suppose that Ferrari would have continued, then your claim that there was a likelihood of it being questioned without the email seems very weak.

I'd be interested to know how you can claim that, given what Ron has said, unless you don't believe Ron Dennis is being truthful?

nope, we are in complete agreement for once my friend.

Ferrari would have continued to race with an illegal car until they got caught. the only thing that is in dispute is how long it would have taken to uncover this cheating and what would have been the outcome if it was discovered at the end of the season instead of the beginning.

perhaps McLaren done them a favour by informing the FIA instead of letting them be caught with what the FIA have described as an illegal device otherwise they may have been severly penalised.

fair enough, yopu win this one my learned friend :D

ArrowsFA1

17th August 2007, 15:51

Your last comment/question was demonstrates why mere speculation proves nothing:...
Exactly :up:

17th August 2007, 16:01

nope, we are in complete agreement for once my friend.

Ferrari would have continued to race with an illegal car until they got caught. the only thing that is in dispute is how long it would have taken to uncover this cheating and what would have been the outcome if it was discovered at the end of the season instead of the beginning.

perhaps McLaren done them a favour by informing the FIA instead of letting them be caught with what the FIA have described as an illegal device otherwise they may have been severly penalised.

fair enough, yopu win this one my learned friend :D

For the umpteenth time, the Ferrari was not illegal. It has not been disqualified, ergo it is legal.

For the umpteenth time, the FIA have not said that such a device as fitted to the Ferrari was illegal. Whiting makes no reference to Ferrari.

Please provide factual evidence to disprove these statements.

You know, factual evidence, a fact, something we cannot instantly disprove like we do with your previous offerings?

17th August 2007, 16:02

Actually, i'll be kind and give you the whole weekend to strengthen your case.

I've got a race car to sell.

markabilly

17th August 2007, 16:05

Mike: "I just got the 708 page bible of ferrari on car set up from our secret source..."

RD: "Shut up!! I do not want to hear anymore about this--get your book and get yourself outa here....and do not be using our copy machines emails and so forth about this...."

Mike: "okay...okay..."

RD: "however, we were thinking about making some calibration changes in our wind tunnels...why don't we have a cup of tea and talk about some possibilities.."

Mike: "Sure..let us go..."

RD: "not right now, say in a week or so...."

Yeah that is why you do not burn your informants

many years ago, there was a nut case who would go visit the secret service and fbi almost every day when he was not in the mental hospital..always with some crazy worthless story...but they never closed the door....one day he came in and said someone had a counterfeit operation in a wharehouse right under your noses...so out of boredom, someone started watching from the windows of SS, looking at the closest wharehouse...and guess what...yeah busted!!!

See, one only burns bridges if one never ever intends to use them in the future.....

ArrowsFA1

17th August 2007, 16:13

The moderator here does not like this at all...
Correct, because far from being "perfectly obvious" it's mere speculation, and we've established that mere speculation proves nothing.

wmcot

18th August 2007, 09:02

For the umpteenth time, the Ferrari was not illegal. It has not been disqualified, ergo it is legal.

For the umpteenth time, the FIA have not said that such a device as fitted to the Ferrari was illegal. Whiting makes no reference to Ferrari.

Please provide factual evidence to disprove these statements.

You know, factual evidence, a fact, something we cannot instantly disprove like we do with your previous offerings?

Yeah, but Ron Dennis called it "illegal" so to many posters here, that makes it illegal. RD is their god, his word is final and always truthful.

tinchote

18th August 2007, 15:56

Yeah, but Ron Dennis called it "illegal" so to many posters here, that makes it illegal. RD is their god, his word is final and always truthful.

Indeed :up:

I would like the people calling Ferrari's floor at Australia "illegal", to show me which sporting regulation was being breached .

markabilly

18th August 2007, 18:28

Correct, because far from being "perfectly obvious" it's mere speculation, and we've established that mere speculation proves nothing.

I was refferring to specaulation about facts and possibilities of facts being totally different, not to the mental sate of someone charged with a crime. In the absence of mind reading, one must infer intent from the actions of the person in response to circumstances.

While you have been engaging in "could have" this and that, now refute that "could have".....that is totally different.

What reasons did RD have for not turning in the rat is the only question that should be answered.

There is only ONE reasonable inference and the words right out of his mouth condemn him....he knew it was wrong because he ran and tried to hide the source of the information......flight has always been admissible to prove state of mind.....

But RD did use the info to mcLAren's benefit when he "turned in" the alleged "illegal floor" without disclosure of the source--all he had to do was simple--here is this unsolicted sorry email sent to us by some sorry POS, please Mr. FIA, do something ASAP please about the floors and the rat infestation...

and add in the fact, that if he burned the rat, there would be no possible future "information" popping up, so better to keep one's door open....

One burns a rat when one absolutely has no future use for him, and one keeps quiet about the rat, where future possibilities.....

No amount of :beer: can change this, but tis a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive.....

Ian McC

18th August 2007, 18:39

Yeah, but Ron Dennis called it "illegal" so to many posters here, that makes it illegal. RD is their god, his word is final and always truthful.

Utter rubbish!

You find me one forum member praying on his knees to the shrine of the God of Ron and I will eat my hat!

:p :

markabilly

18th August 2007, 18:48

Utter rubbish!

You find me one forum member praying on his knees to the shrine of the God of Ron and I will eat my hat!

:p :
I agree, none of them are on their knees praying, they are too busy drinking RD's kool aid

:beer:

You should be glad cause that means you do not have to go buy a hat for your dinner tonight :p

ioan

19th August 2007, 00:02

Utter rubbish!

You find me one forum member praying on his knees to the shrine of the God of Ron and I will eat my hat!

:p :

Got no mirror at home?! :p :

Ian McC

19th August 2007, 00:25

Got no mirror at home?! :p :

Plenty thanks, still not eating my hat though

wmcot

19th August 2007, 07:11

Utter rubbish!

You find me one forum member praying on his knees to the shrine of the God of Ron and I will eat my hat!

:p :

Although I don't have photo evidence, there are a couple of posters on this thread I strongly suspect are worshiping an image of Ron in their McShrines daily (if not more often) ;) This is based entirely on their apparent belief system that Ron is the 2nd perfect being to walk upon the face of the earth.

(p.s. - I don't know if they physically kneel, but from their words they are mentally kneeling to him.)

ioan

19th August 2007, 10:56

Plenty thanks, still not eating my hat though

Must be all broken! :p :

Ranger

19th August 2007, 11:38

Although I don't have photo evidence, there are a couple of posters on this thread I strongly suspect are worshiping an image of Ron in their McShrines daily (if not more often) ;) This is based entirely on their apparent belief system that Ron is the 2nd perfect being to walk upon the face of the earth.

(p.s. - I don't know if they physically kneel, but from their words they are mentally kneeling to him.)

Are you a psychologist? :p : :rolleyes:

Big Ben

19th August 2007, 19:42

FIA appeals its own decision. That´s one for the books!

Flat.tyres

20th August 2007, 11:48

Indeed :up:

I would like the people calling Ferrari's floor at Australia "illegal", to show me which sporting regulation was being breached .

as we do not have access to the floor and its fixings, we cannot be 100% accurate in our findings otherwise some wisear*e will start quoting chapter and verse of some legal book about inadmissable evidence etc.

what we do know is the following.

1. Ferrari had a performance advantage in Aus that they didnt have after they modified the car.

2. the FIA said that a device that worked in the manner of the one submitted for referal by McLaren off of allegedly a design of the Ferrari one was illegal against the FIA laws I published earlier in the thread. consequently, the FIA changed how the tests were done to ensure people couldnt have a floor that breached this rule.

the rules have not been changed so why remove the flexible fixing, and take a performance hit, if it was legal? it was either legal and didnt need to be changed or illegal and did. saying that it was only illegal when the tests were changed to reflect the cheat does not mean it was legal before, only that it was againt the rules but they got away with it.

nobody has answered this question yet

20th August 2007, 13:09

Flat.tyres

20th August 2007, 13:23

The first paragraph of your post answered the question you asked at the bottom so eloquently, it doesn't need any further explanation.

The defence rests it's case.

you bait the hook, cast the line, wait 1/2 an hour and whooooooshhhhhhhh!! :p :

so, taking the pointless definitive legal arguement aside and resorting to LOGICAL DEDUCTION, how would you answer the question.

Logic, Mr Spock. when you've argued the legalities to the nth degree, we are left with the blindingly obvious answer. it was illegal so they changed it.

why is it so impossible to accept the logical answer? nobody is calling for them to be penalised because it was the first race and lots of teams try to pull a fast one. we know it was illegal, the FIA know it was illegal and I suspect you know it was illegal as well but you got away with it. no big deal, just admit it.

20th August 2007, 13:29

so, taking the pointless definitive legal arguement aside and resorting to LOGICAL DEDUCTION, how would you answer the question.

There's the major fault in your logic........

Such things as illegality are defined solely in legal terms.

20th August 2007, 13:33

markabilly

20th August 2007, 13:50

as we do not have access to the floor and its fixings, we cannot be 100% accurate in our findings otherwise some wisear*e will start quoting chapter and verse of some legal book about inadmissable evidence etc.

what we do know is the following.

1. Ferrari had a performance advantage in Aus that they didnt have after they modified the car.

2. the FIA said that a device that worked in the manner of the one submitted for referal by McLaren off of allegedly a design of the Ferrari one was illegal against the FIA laws I published earlier in the thread. consequently, the FIA changed how the tests were done to ensure people couldnt have a floor that breached this rule.

the rules have not been changed so why remove the flexible fixing, and take a performance hit, if it was legal? it was either legal and didnt need to be changed or illegal and did. saying that it was only illegal when the tests were changed to reflect the cheat does not mean it was legal before, only that it was againt the rules but they got away with it.

nobody has answered this question yet
T

he FIA said clarified the rule, to say the floor, would be included within the definition of movable aero devices, and by now clearly including it, would be illegal...In the absence of clarification, it is impossible to argue that the floor clearly fell within this definiton and the car had passed inspection.........

So what...

Mac is quilty because they not only used the information but failed to disclose the source. The only reasonable explanation is they did not disclose the source was to leave open the door for future little bits of info popping up, because one does not burn a rat where they have future hopes of some more "news"

Mac is also quilty because when the 700 pages showed up, Mac told MC to hide it, burn, shred it, but whatever you do, DONT leave any clues on our computers and copiers....Now if MC were to read this document, understand what it meant, and have a little tea and discussion later about just how does ferrari calibrate and use their wind tunnels, what amount of rear downforce calculations on thos Bridgestone tires...

If MAc had simply said to the FIA, here is this email and here is the 708 page document, makes certain statements and we do not know what to make of it exactly......looks like there is a rat infestation at Ferrari, may be they need to get a barnyard cat....

BTW--this is not speculation about changing facts, this is how one proves the state of mind of an actor--did he know what he was doing was wrong, and these actions of MAC prove exactly that

But some folks have been drinking thie kool aid, and now, you need to start chewing on your hat......

markabilly

20th August 2007, 14:19

Utter rubbish!

You find me one forum member praying on his knees to the shrine of the God of Ron and I will eat my hat!

:p :

Does a pair of them count http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120419

If so you best get to chewing...oh I forgot, following RD ethical practices, plausible denial, and where not available, implausible denial, and if that don't work then appeal.....

Flat.tyres

20th August 2007, 14:47

What surprises me is that someone involved in motor-racing such as your good self doesn't realise that logical deduction as defined by yourself is irrelevant.

I've worked in motor sport for 20 odd years and not once have I witnessed the scrutineers disqualify something because of 'logical deduction'.

They only disqualify when they can prove beyond doubt that a car is illegal.

tamburello

we are a world away from scrutineering on this forum, aren't we? this is a discussion forum, isn't it?

we are not talking about disqualifying the Ferrari because of a breach of the sporting or technical regulation but merely looking at what we believe the facts to be in this case and drawing logical conclusions. let us not put elements of grandour upon ourselves but look at what the reality probably was otherwise what is the point?

we know that McLaren submitted a design allegedly from stepney as claimed by Couglan for clarification.

we know that if used, such a design would be illegal.

we assume that the design was similar to the questioned part on the Ferrari although it could have been a complete red herring from Nigel which, in the light of this whole debarcle, seems a very remote possibility.

because Ferrari removed the part directly after the clarification, it is logical to assume that the part was infact similar to the design submitted by McLaren and, as submitted in a written statement from the FIA, strictly prohibited under the rules then and now.

if you can give me a logical alternative why they removed it, then we can discuss it but it is most likely that this was the chain of events, is it not.

legal be damned, this is just basic common sense as applied in a friendly discussion on a forum. we have no legal juristriction and have only the information as detailed.

so, in that case, give me your opinion of what happened if it differs from mine but I suspect it doesn't, does it?

Flat.tyres

20th August 2007, 14:50

Does a pair of them count http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120419

If so you best get to chewing...oh I forgot, following RD ethical practices, plausible denial, and where not available, implausible denial, and if that don't work then appeal.....

oh, you kill me :laugh:

now, isn't there a train line your supposed to be playing on :p :

ArrowsFA1

20th August 2007, 14:52

Whiting makes no reference to Ferrari.
Why would he make reference to Ferrari? He was responding directly to a request for clarification (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57650) from McLaren, a request that made no mention of Ferrari, or the Ferrari floor.

McLaren's letter to the FIA said:

"We would like to consider the installation of a mechanism on the front of our floor, consisting of springs and pivots. By a suitable arrangement and configuration of the springs (rates and preloads) within this mechanism, we will be able to control the flexibility of the bib so as to meet the requirements of the test specified in Article 3.17.4, but to otherwise allow greater flexibility at higher loads by a non-linear characteristic."

Whiting's response:

"Quite clearly, any such device would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations."

The basis of McLaren's clarification request may have been information provided by a Ferrari employee, something that the FIA were not made aware of at the time. However, the absence of the name 'Ferrari' in Whiting's response does not alter the fact that the mechanism, as outlined in McLaren's letter was ruled as strictly prohibited by the FIA's technical regulations.

markabilly

20th August 2007, 15:40

Why would he make reference to Ferrari? He was responding directly to a request for clarification (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57650) from McLaren, a request that made no mention of Ferrari, or the Ferrari floor.

McLaren's letter to the FIA said:

Whiting's response:

The basis of McLaren's clarification request may have been information provided by a Ferrari employee, something that the FIA were not made aware of at the time. However, the absence of the name 'Ferrari' in Whiting's response does not alter the fact that the mechanism, as outlined in McLaren's letter was ruled as strictly prohibited by the FIA's technical regulations.
For pure sake of argument, let us all assume that the device was totally and completely illegal, with no question about the fact that it met the testing requirements, and some day some way, FIA was going to figure it all out

Changes nothing in terms of how the information was acquired and the secret manner of acquisition, and indeed, the manner of presentation was so contrived by presenting the ferrari design as though it were something that MAC was going to do, but it was NOT CLEAR to Mac as to whether the design could be used or not, demonstrates again the clear intent to benefit from a leak, and not only benefit from that leak but to keep it so that any future leaks could come into MAC's door as well, by not burning the informant

And if it were so clearly illegal, then Mac should have protested, but instead chose the more devious route, of presenting this "new design" as though MAc was considering it

So anyone's opinion that since it met the test regarding load, then it was not per se illegal, as a moving aero device, but once clarified as being still "strictly prohibited", if it moves the car upward, regardless of whether it meets the exact test so specified....it now is illegal for future use...or whether is was ALWAYS ILLEGAL.... changes nothing as far as the benefit received and the manner in which the information was acquired and used (ie to protect the source for future use...)

Setting aside ethical issues and the fact that the source leaked out, it was a brilliant move by MAc, but then things went awry

ioan

20th August 2007, 16:01

so, taking the pointless definitive legal arguement aside and resorting to LOGICAL DEDUCTION, how would you answer the question.

Do you mean by LOGIC as generally known logic or by YOUR LOGIC?!
Given this thread I believe that none of us can let go of common sense logic and use your logic, so it's better to stop this nonsense you are spreading.

markabilly

20th August 2007, 16:01

ArrowsFA1

20th August 2007, 16:07

Okay ferrari ain't no angel, so what.....guilty is still guilty.....
That's very true, which is why they are no longer running with the floor they ran in Australia ;)

markabilly

20th August 2007, 16:25

That's very true, which is why they are no longer running with the floor they ran in Australia ;)
gee, I thought it was because the FIA told mac that Mac could not use Mac's "new design", so since Mac could not do it, then both BMW and Ferrari decided they could not either.... :rolleyes:

Flat.tyres

20th August 2007, 16:27

And when on trial as MAC is, it has always been a fav tactic of many a lawyer to try to distract the attention and need for punishment of your client, by pointing the finger at someone else, to smear the victim--ala a certain basketball player's tactic--to point out that gee, if she did not want sex, why were she asking for it by being in the room, and not only that, she had sex with another guy, why they found so much DNA material there, they still have not figured out who all she been sleeping with........and so on.....

Okay ferrari ain't no angel, so what.....guilty is still guilty.....

And again, it is simply proved by MAC's own covert actions.

Case closed. :s mash:

Get a rope.

opps is that "good for the sake of the sport"????...what about bernie's money...and then LH's claim for eternal fame, which will vastly increase our future rervenue...okay now THAT EXCUSE we can all understand..... :beer:

Im a little confused but think you may have a point.

for the sake of arguement, we can agree that the part was illegal and discuss what McLaren did and why they did it.

you say that they didnt want to burn their source and I think youre correct in that. what their reasoning is for omitting the source and asking for clarification is an interesting question.

if they had of gone to the FIA and said that they want to protest the device, as they believe it was illegal then they would have had to say why they thought it was illegal. The chances are that Ferrari would have been officially warned to change the device and potentially omitted from the race results but Mclaren would have had to say they had a tip off.

similarly, if they went to the FIA and said they had a whistle blower, the chances are that Nigels name would have got back to Ferrari. neither of these would have been good for Nigel and the first option bad for the sport in general.

perhaps there was good intention from McLaren and Ron not to get Ferrari penalised but I dont think so.

you may well be right that someone tipping them off as to any dirty tricks Ferrari were using was an attractive option or it may be that Ron said thanks but no more matey because this is not the way we want to do business.

detirmining whether Ferrari had an illegal part was the easy bit and just the tip of the ice cube, so to speak. the iceberg is another matter.

remember when I mentioned that there were 2 seperate instances, an email and a dossier a week or two before it was confirmed in the press. from other things I know, I truly believe Ron had decided that enough was enough after the first email and having this communication was dangerous which is why he ordered it cut. it was that point onwards that Mike went native.

20th August 2007, 16:56

so, in that case, give me your opinion of what happened if it differs from mine but I suspect it doesn't, does it?

No, pal, very much not the case.

I do not consider something to be illegal before clarification by the governing body makes it illegal.

Funnily enough, neither does the Governing Body.

20th August 2007, 17:07

we are not talking about disqualifying the Ferrari because of a breach of the sporting or technical regulation but merely looking at what we believe the facts to be in this case and drawing logical conclusions. let us not put elements of grandour upon ourselves but look at what the reality probably was otherwise what is the point?

You keep quoting the Ferrari as being illegal, but want to ignore the legal terms that would define illegality and legality.

And I repeat, the only terms to judge illegality are in legal terms.

tinchote

20th August 2007, 17:31

detirmining whether Ferrari had an illegal part was the easy bit and just the tip of the ice cube, so to speak. the iceberg is another matter.

Since you haven't answered my question from two days ago, and you keep repeating the "illegal" word: could you please care to explain me which regulation was violated by Ferrari's floor at Australia (thus making it illegal) ?

20th August 2007, 17:33

legal be damned

Au contraire, as I believe you will find they say on the Champs D'Elysee.

Flat.tyres

20th August 2007, 17:37

You keep quoting the Ferrari as being illegal, but want to ignore the legal terms that would define illegality and legality.

And I repeat, the only terms to judge illegality are in legal terms.

dont you think thats rather a childish stance to take on a discussion forum?

we all know that the FIA have not said that the device fitted to the Ferrari was illigal.

They have said that the design, which allegedly came from Ferrari, was illegal. we also know that after they said this, Ferrari immediatly took it off their car.

but, you are 100% correct that the FIA did not say the actual device on the Ferrari was illegal.

now, I ask the question as we can deal with opinions here as well can we not?

do you think that the device on the Ferrari was a legal device. not what the FIA say but Logically, would you say it behaved in a similar way to the McLaren design?

come on man. stop hiding behind semantics and lets look at the nuts and bolts of this :laugh:

tinchote

20th August 2007, 17:49

20th August 2007, 18:46

do you think that the device on the Ferrari was a legal device. not what the FIA say but Logically, would you say it behaved in a similar way to the McLaren design?

I believe the Ferrari device was legal at Melbourne precisely because the FIA say it was.

The Mclaren device would, assuming it was the same, also have been legal at Melbourne.

I cannot ignore the verdict of the FIA. They are the governing body of the sport and therefore outweigh the opinion of a Mclaren fan with a dodgy understanding of legal principles.

markabilly

20th August 2007, 18:56

dont you think thats rather a childish stance to take on a discussion forum?

we all know that the FIA have not said that the device fitted to the Ferrari was illigal.

They have said that the design, which allegedly came from Ferrari, was illegal. we also know that after they said this, Ferrari immediatly took it off their car.

but, you are 100% correct that the FIA did not say the actual device on the Ferrari was illegal.

now, I ask the question as we can deal with opinions here as well can we not?

do you think that the device on the Ferrari was a legal device. not what the FIA say but Logically, would you say it behaved in a similar way to the McLaren design?

come on man. stop hiding behind semantics and lets look at the nuts and bolts of this :laugh:

FIA said nothing about the ferrari and BMW floors

What they addressed was a proposed design by MAc that as presented, they said, would be strictly forbidden even though it passed the test.....so MAc' proposed floor was deemed to be not permitted under the rules, regardless of whether it could pass the test...and the way Mac put it, explcitly suggested that MAc did not know whether legal or illegal either, hence the request for clarification from Mac :?:

Now one might point out that it seemed very similar to the ferrari design, well, then this email pops.......but why quibble over semantics...and minor details......

MAC did not say, outright, that someone has contacted us about illegal activities and here is ALL we know FIA-- you decide FIA what to do......and ah, there's the rub that condenms

:vader:

Big Ben

20th August 2007, 20:07

Do you mean by LOGIC as generally known logic or by YOUR LOGIC?!
Given this thread I believe that none of us can let go of common sense logic and use your logic, so it's better to stop this nonsense you are spreading.

I would like to point out for the admins...that this is a personal attack... I've been penalized for less

Big Ben

20th August 2007, 20:13

Since you haven't answered my question from two days ago, and you keep repeating the "illegal" word: could you please care to explain me which regulation was violated by Ferrari's floor at Australia (thus making it illegal) ?

Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations

tinchote

20th August 2007, 22:27

Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations

Ok, and can you explain then how the cars passed several layers of scrutineering at Australia? Maybe some conspiracy? ;)

That's the typical example of a rule that is impossible to police. There is no such thing as "no degree of freedom": such a part would not vibrate, for example. That's why the rules are enforced by certain measurements (tests): you fail the test, you are illegal, you pass the test, you are legal.

markabilly

20th August 2007, 23:26

Ok, and can you explain then how the cars passed several layers of scrutineering at Australia? Maybe some conspiracy? ;)

That's the typical example of a rule that is impossible to police. There is no such thing as "no degree of freedom": such a part would not vibrate, for example. That's why the rules are enforced by certain measurements (tests): you fail the test, you are illegal, you pass the test, you are legal.

If it is so illegal, then MAc should have protested
Instead, Mac wrote a proposal for what they said their new design to see if it was legal.
FIA says NO
No protest by Mac.

The "case" going forward ain't about the sins of Ferrari but about the sins of Mac: did Mac attempt to (SECRETLY) benefit from certain information stolen from Ferrari and to continue to seek future benefits by hiding the info source..

Easy answer: If MAc simply protested, and said this person is sending us emails saying this, we do not know but here it all is...and so we step back, then this would NOT be an issue, and the answer to the question is NO.

Case Closed. Rd can go back to having more suntan lotion rubbed on from LH.

Yet, like a school child caught with his fingers in the jar, tries to excuse himself by saying that Joey did it too. And just how many other men did she sleep with before she claims I raped her.......and so she is not worthy to be a victim.....now if crimes must be measured by the worthiness of the victim, then vigilante justice is all that counts....

But RD is saying but none of this matters the floor was illegal....therefore it is okay to steal and help hide the fact of the theft....that is what you call being:

"an accomplice AFTER the fact......" (one who aids and abets another by hiding evidence of a crime IS EXACTLY that......) and "a party to the crime" (one who acts in direct concert with another lawbreaker is quilty of being as culpable of a party to the crime, the same as all of the parties to the crime).

if the glove fits, you must convict

wmcot

21st August 2007, 06:47

as we do not have access to the floor and its fixings, we cannot be 100% accurate in our findings otherwise some wisear*e will start quoting chapter and verse of some legal book about inadmissable evidence etc.

what we do know is the following.

1. Ferrari had a performance advantage in Aus that they didnt have after they modified the car.

2. the FIA said that a device that worked in the manner of the one submitted for referal by McLaren off of allegedly a design of the Ferrari one was illegal against the FIA laws I published earlier in the thread. consequently, the FIA changed how the tests were done to ensure people couldnt have a floor that breached this rule.

the rules have not been changed so why remove the flexible fixing, and take a performance hit, if it was legal? it was either legal and didnt need to be changed or illegal and did. saying that it was only illegal when the tests were changed to reflect the cheat does not mean it was legal before, only that it was againt the rules but they got away with it.

nobody has answered this question yet

Point 1 - You are correct.

Point 2 - Your first paragraph gives you your own answer - the floor was legal until the FIA changed the tests. At the time of the Melbourne race a certain static load was used to measure the flexibility of the floor (as is used in other aero devices.) Ferrari passed the test and raced with a legal floor. After Melbourne, the test was changed with an increased load causing more flexing so the floors of Ferrari and I believe others had to be modified.

In the future, the FIA can change the tests again with even greater loads and I'm sure they'll find floors flexing or, perhaps, snapping off. It's similar to your math instructor giving you an algebra test (fixed load) which you pass. A couple of weeks later he gives you a calculus test which you do not pass (added loading) unless you have crammed for the exam (modified the strength of your knowledge.) If you don't pass the Calculus exam, it doesn't mean that you cheated on your Algebra exam...

(I know I'm wasting my time with another example, but maybe one of them will "click" and a little light will go on.)

wmcot

21st August 2007, 06:48

Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations

But not until the method of testing was changed.

wmcot

21st August 2007, 06:49

Are you a psychologist? :p : :rolleyes:

After endless posts on this same subject, I think I'm closer to psychotic! :)

ArrowsFA1

21st August 2007, 08:27

Ok, and can you explain then how the cars passed several layers of scrutineering at Australia?
Because it took Whiting a week to rule on the matter. There was no protest in Australia, just a request for clarification, which is why (I assume) there was never a chance of the race results being changed.

But not until the method of testing was changed.
Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations was applied by Charlie Whiting in direct response to the content of McLaren's letter (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57650), which was given to the FIA at the Australian GP. Whiting gave his ruling a week later. The floor test was changed after Whiting had ruled that "...any such device [as outlined in McLaren's letter] would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations".

As the information contained in McLaren's letter was based on details of Ferrari's floor provided by a Ferrari employee, it can be argued that Ferrari's floor was found to be in breach of Article 3.15, therefore "illegal" in F1 terms.

That is why Ron Dennis used (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61260) the term "illegal" when he said "Were it not for Mr Stepney drawing this illegal device to the attention of McLaren, and McLaren drawing it to the attention of the FIA, there is every reason to suppose that Ferrari would have continued to race with an illegal car."

Now, as Ferrari were never penalised, and the Australian GP results stood, it can also be argued that Ferrari's floor was legal at the time it was raced, therefore not illegal in F1 terms.

Simple :crazy: :p

Flat.tyres

21st August 2007, 10:15

But not until the method of testing was changed.

I fail to understand how obviously intelligent people fail to grasp the basics of legality or illegality.

the FIA said such a device would be illegal. period!

they did not change the rules to make it illegal but introduced a different testing procedure to pick up on teams using the device when they shouldn't.

lets take Murder. If you murdered someone 20 years ago but didn't get caught, is it still illegal?

now, with the advent of DNA evidence, you are identified and tried, how far do you think your defence will get you with the defence that DNA evidence wasn't used 20 years ago so it wasnt illegal. all the way to the Gallows is my guess :D

SGWilko

21st August 2007, 13:00

Christ on a bike....

You Tommy Truckers will argue till the cows come home!

Flexing floors - all materials, to some degree will flex. Some a lot, some a little, and some not very much at all. So, some degree of telerance is allowed for in the rules to cater for this natural flexing.

However, what seems very clear to me is, that the Ferrari floor solution was created in a way to flex only within the stated tolerance allowed during the specific load tests in scrutineering, but at higher loads (those experienced at speed) the floor flexed in excess of this stated tolerance providing an aero benefit, and is therefore illegal. It is illegal, because it is flexing in excess of that permitted.

Now, I think we can probably all agree that testing this at racing speed is a little tricky, poor Charlie certainly can't run THAT fast.......

So, Charlie, realising that things must be corrected, the load test is changed, and a greater load is applied to the floor. The rule regarding floor flex allowance is the same, just the testing methodology is changed.

So, while applying the same rules, but in a way that better recreates 'racing at speed load conditions' the Ferrari (and others) floor will flex in excess of the stated tolerance.

So, is it still legal?

It WAS illegal, but the test at the time was inadequate to highlight the bahaviour, so it was 'overlooked'

It is almost a half empty/half full scenario. You are never going to agree, so just let it go.

janneppi

21st August 2007, 13:38

Sorry to disturb the delightful little chit chat. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure it has been mentioned already and quite frankly don't care to look more than three pages behind.

There was a story on a Finnish news site that the panel of judges in Stepney gate is being revied, there are 18 judges in the big list.
No Germans, Italians, Brits or spaniards allowed, so apparently judges will be:
Robert Winghe, Belgium
Pierre Torrigny, Canada
Philippe Narmino, Monaco
Macedo Cunho, portugal
David Miles, australia

ArrowsFA1

21st August 2007, 13:50

You Tommy Truckers will argue till the cows come home!
:laugh:

Why is it so important to establish that Ferrari's floor was legal in the context of "Stepneygate"? Perhaps because the alternative is unpalatable for those looking to establish McLaren's guilt, and it undermines the accusations that have been made against McLaren since the beginning of July.

Whatever, Ferrari have said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61295) they will fully explain their position on the entire matter at the appeal. Perhaps the 13th September will finally see evidence of the many accusations being made. The press will be there so full details are expected.

21st August 2007, 14:08

I fail to understand how obviously intelligent people fail to grasp the basics of legality or illegality.

Christ on a bike! Now that has to be the most priceless comment on this thread.

You are the one who fails to understand the issue of legality and illegality.

You are the one who cannot comprehend that by passing the original test, the FIA were satisfied that the floor conformed to the regulations. Et voila, the floor was deemed legal by the Governing Authority.

The FIA, being the governing authority, are the sole arbitors of what passes scrutineering and the tests to prove legality. It is not you nor Ron Dennis nor anybody else, it is the FIA. They said legal in Melbourne, that's the final word.

That, my dear child, is why the floor was legal and why no protests were made.

One moment you are saying 'legal be damned' and the next claiming knowledge of legality/illegality? The inconsistent argument you have put forward is nothing short of being a joke.

I would pay money to see you take on a case in the justice system...You'd be laughed out of court.

SGWilko

21st August 2007, 14:11

Christ on a bike!

It's environmentally friendly, you see....... :D

21st August 2007, 14:11

:laugh:

Why is it so important to establish that Ferrari's floor was legal in the context of "Stepneygate"? Perhaps because the alternative is unpalatable for those looking to establish McLaren's guilt, and it undermines the accusations that have been made against McLaren since the beginning of July.

Well, the FIA estabilished for themselves that the floor was legal. It is only those who cannot accept that who argue anything else.

As for the legality of the Ferrari floor, as decided by the FIA, having any effect on estabilishing Mclaren's guilt since July....may I please remind you that Mclaren have been found guilty already by the FIA.

Those of us who you suspect of accusing Mclaren are not accusing at all, merely acknowledging the verdict.

It is the punishment we're not convinced of.

21st August 2007, 15:36

[quote="Flat.tyres"]lets take Murder. If you murdered someone 20 years ago but didn't get caught, is it still illegal?

now, with the advent of DNA evidence, you are identified and tried, how far do you think your defence will get you with the defence that DNA evidence wasn't used 20 years ago so it wasnt illegal. all the way to the Gallows is my guess[quote="Flat.tyres"]

Once again, you are giving misleading information and, once again, your legal knowledge let's you down.

The Ferrari floor is not comparable to your Murder scenario, for one simple but legally resolute reason....

They have, in effect, already been judged by the Governing Body.

It should be noted that under the EU legal constitution, a defendant can plead 'Autrefois acquit', the definition of which is "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State".

More commonly this is known as Double Jeopardy.

Having been passed as legal by the FIA stewards, who are invested with the authority of the FIA just in the same way as a Judge is invested with the powers of the legal system, Ferrari have already been cleared.

This occurred at Melbourne.

Since the tests were changed at Malaysia and both Ferrari's found to be in compliance with the new regulations, there is no new evidence to be had.

This is were you DNA scenario collapses....there is no evidence.

Therefore, any later accusations of Illegality have already been considered and rejected.

So, now that your misleading and unknowledgable argument has been revealed as such, the real situation is that Ferrari simply can plead 'Autrefois acquit' and your argument is legally dead.

Since your argument is legally dead, it serves no purpose.....Unless you do not recognise the Governing Body, which doesn't help your argument at all anyway, because funnily enough, the last two people I can recall who did not recognise a governing body were Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic.

Now, I'm sure you don't want to be considered in that kind of company?

21st August 2007, 15:42

I fail to understand how obviously intelligent people fail to grasp the basics of legality or illegality.

the FIA said such a device would be illegal. period!

they did not change the rules to make it illegal but introduced a different testing procedure to pick up on teams using the device when they shouldn't.

lets take Murder. If you murdered someone 20 years ago but didn't get caught, is it still illegal?

now, with the advent of DNA evidence, you are identified and tried, how far do you think your defence will get you with the defence that DNA evidence wasn't used 20 years ago so it wasnt illegal. all the way to the Gallows is my guess :D

All the way to the gallows?

My dear boy, I would draw you're attention to the case of Derek Bentley, who was posthumously pardoned.

Not exactly a fine example for your idea of justice.

ArrowsFA1

21st August 2007, 16:26

Well, the FIA estabilished for themselves that the floor was legal. It is only those who cannot accept that who argue anything else.
In the light of your opinion, and for the purposes of clarity, what exactly was the FIA's Charlie Whiting ruling on when he said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57650) that "...any such device would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations"?

I had understood that the information provided to the FIA by McLaren, upon which Whiting made his judgement, came from a Ferrari employee and detailed the way in which Ferrari's floor, as it appeared at the Australian GP, worked. Is that not correct?

21st August 2007, 17:01

In the light of your opinion, and for the purposes of clarity, what exactly was the FIA's Charlie Whiting ruling on when he said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57650) that "...any such device would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations"?

I had understood that the information provided to the FIA by McLaren, upon which Whiting made his judgement, came from a Ferrari employee and detailed the way in which Ferrari's floor, as it appeared at the Australian GP, worked. Is that not correct?

That would appear to be correct, but has no legal impact.

The clarification occurred after Melbourne, after the FIA (whose technical delegate is the very same Charlie Whiting you like to quote) had cleared the F2007's.

I really do suggest you try to understand the significance of 'Autrefois acquit', as it is the key to the issue of the legality of the Ferrari floor.

Therefore, using the legal basis of 'Autrefois acquit', Charlie Whiting's judgement on the Mclaren clarification is irrelevant to the case of the Ferrari's at Melbourne.

They were legally announced as being legal. Once that was done, all your wailing and gnashing of teeth is pointless.

Flat.tyres

21st August 2007, 17:44

That would appear to be correct, but has no legal impact.

The clarification occurred after Melbourne, after the FIA (whose technical delegate is the very same Charlie Whiting you like to quote) had cleared the F2007's.

I really do suggest you try to understand the significance of 'Autrefois acquit', as it is the key to the issue of the legality of the Ferrari floor.

Therefore, using the legal basis of 'Autrefois acquit', Charlie Whiting's judgement on the Mclaren clarification is irrelevant to the case of the Ferrari's at Melbourne.

They were legally announced as being legal. Once that was done, all your wailing and gnashing of teeth is pointless.

so, it probably contravened the rules but they got off with it because it wasn't picked up. is that what your trying to say.

phewwww, thought we would never get there :D

21st August 2007, 17:57

so, it probably contravened the rules but they got off with it because it wasn't picked up. is that what your trying to say.

phewwww, thought we would never get there :D

I am not saying it contravened the rules. Far from it. I am stating the exact opposite.

Once it was passed by the scrutineers at the end of the Australian GP it was officially legal. It passed the only tests required to prove it's legality.

Charlie Whitings judgement was made after that, as was the change to the testing procedure,which makes it irrelevant.

I would love to here how you are going to argue against the decision of the regulatory body and against the common legal practice of 'Autrefois acquit' in a way that is relevant to the case in hand and does not rely on the pathetic non-legal and therefore non-relevant examples you've offered to date.

I won't hold my breath though, as previous form suggests I may have requested something beyond your abilities.

21st August 2007, 18:03

so, it probably contravened the rules but they got off with it because it wasn't picked up. is that what your trying to say.

You use the word 'Probably'.....and you seriously want to claim a victory when 'probably' has been shown countless times not to be good enough to make a conviction on.

If all you've got is 'probably' then I really would advise you give up.

The FIA wouldn't accept that....they didn't with the issue of Mclaren benefitting from the dossier, may I remind you...and neither do I.

Hard, undeniable facts are all that are worth discussing, and so far you have failed to bring any to the discussion.

And you claim other people are childish? Funny, because the level of your logic isn't exactly graduate level.

janneppi

21st August 2007, 18:12

21st August 2007, 18:29

markabilly

21st August 2007, 18:36

I'd rather watch skantilly clad ladies instead of edit peoples posts, so let's not go to personal attacks, thanks.

Dare i suggest talking about my beautiful post #384 instead of going round and round the same bloody circle for another ten pages. :)

Just put their (and mine) names on your ignore list button or whatever that thing is, and then you will not have to be bothered..... :D

And I was going to talk about about it, but I was afraid it would be "off-topic" and would just get me more penalty points or whatever.......... :eek:

ioan

21st August 2007, 19:11

Just put their (and mine) names on your ignore list button or whatever that thing is, and then you will not have to be bothered..... :D

You see we also have an advantage on mods, we can have an ignore list, they can't! :D

ioan

21st August 2007, 19:18

Flexing floors - all materials, to some degree will flex. Some a lot, some a little, and some not very much at all. So, some degree of telerance is allowed for in the rules to cater for this natural flexing.

However, what seems very clear to me is, that the Ferrari floor solution was created in a way to flex only within the stated tolerance allowed during the specific load tests in scrutineering, but at higher loads (those experienced at speed) the floor flexed in excess of this stated tolerance providing an aero benefit,

Oh my, Ferrari invented a material that flexes more when subjected to higher loads! And I was living with the impression that this is something that happens with any material. \:

and is therefore illegal. It is illegal, because it is flexing in excess of that permitted.

No it isn't illegal because it didn't flex in excess of what permitted by the rules when loaded with the loads specified in the rules. :rolleyes:

Common sense and a bit of physics are more than enough to understand it. Obviously the FIA have more of both than some members around here. :p :

wmcot

21st August 2007, 19:52

Because it took Whiting a week to rule on the matter. There was no protest in Australia, just a request for clarification, which is why (I assume) there was never a chance of the race results being changed.

Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations was applied by Charlie Whiting in direct response to the content of McLaren's letter (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57650), which was given to the FIA at the Australian GP. Whiting gave his ruling a week later. The floor test was changed after Whiting had ruled that "...any such device [as outlined in McLaren's letter] would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations".

As the information contained in McLaren's letter was based on details of Ferrari's floor provided by a Ferrari employee, it can be argued that Ferrari's floor was found to be in breach of Article 3.15, therefore "illegal" in F1 terms.

That is why Ron Dennis used (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61260) the term "illegal" when he said "Were it not for Mr Stepney drawing this illegal device to the attention of McLaren, and McLaren drawing it to the attention of the FIA, there is every reason to suppose that Ferrari would have continued to race with an illegal car."

Now, as Ferrari were never penalised, and the Australian GP results stood, it can also be argued that Ferrari's floor was legal at the time it was raced, therefore not illegal in F1 terms.

Simple :crazy: :p

EXACTLY!! This is F1 so all relevance only applies to F1. As you stated, it was "not illegal in F1 terms."

That's all we're talking about here.

wmcot

21st August 2007, 19:57

:laugh:

Why is it so important to establish that Ferrari's floor was legal in the context of "Stepneygate"?

I don't see the flexible floor as having much to do with Stepneygate at all other than the way it may have been tipped off to McLaren by an inside spy.

How the FIA ruled or didn't rule or changed the rules about flexible floors doesn't have anything to do with Stepney.

wmcot

21st August 2007, 20:06

I fail to understand how obviously intelligent people fail to grasp the basics of legality or illegality.

the FIA said such a device would be illegal. period!

Then why wasn't Ferrari disqualified? period!

they did not change the rules to make it illegal but introduced a different testing procedure to pick up on teams using the device when they shouldn't.

Don't the testing procedures determine whether a part of the car falls within the rules or not? The floor at Melbourne met the rules, hence it was legal.

Before Malaysia, the test requirements were changed requiring floors to meet new standards. The revised floor was also legal.

It's really simple.

Your murder comparison is not relevant because you are comparing judicial laws with F1 rules. One could go on arguing for days the dissimilarities between the two. Sporting rules are rarely as stringent as judicial laws, especially in F1 where rules are re-written and re-interpreted several times a season.

ArrowsFA1

22nd August 2007, 08:24

The FIA wouldn't accept that....they didn't with the issue of Mclaren benefitting from the dossier, may I remind you...
That's a significant point, and one worth remembering.

Sporting rules are rarely as stringent as judicial laws, especially in F1 where rules are re-written and re-interpreted several times a season.
tamburello has placed great emphasis on judicial laws and the judicial process, but they don't apply in the case being made against McLaren. The FIA, and the F1 regulations, do.

Of course Ferrari have turned to the judicial process where Coughlan and Stepney are concerned.

Flat.tyres

22nd August 2007, 11:22

Then why wasn't Ferrari disqualified? period!

because the device was built in such a way that although it contravened the law, it complied with a testing procedure that was flawed.

whether it passed the test or not is irrelevant to the legality of the device. we all know that tests can be fudged.

what is relevant, as Tamburello rightly says, is that the car was passed after Australia. that is a fact and not disputed. it has no relevance on whether the car had an illegal device that the FIA clarified would be illegal. it only confirms that the device they had passed a test that the FIA accept is flawed and was changed to ensure the rules couldn't be broken in a similar way in the future.

at the end of the day, this is the simple reality and its not worth argueing it ad nausaum. I dont really care what people agree on here because I know, and the FIA knows, that a moveable device such as the one Ferrari were using was illegal and they were made to change it. OK, they had an unfair advantage in Aus but thats history and they weren't allowed to get away with it after there.

Don't the testing procedures determine whether a part of the car falls within the rules or not? The floor at Melbourne met the rules, hence it was legal.

the testing procedures are supposed to ensure the rules are adhered to. there was an obvious flaw in the testing process in Australia which was fixed by Malaysia. Ferrari passed the testing procedure. we agree on that. personally, I think they were lucky because other teams have tried similar tricks and been nailed for it. ie Honda

Before Malaysia, the test requirements were changed requiring floors to meet new standards. The revised floor was also legal.

It's really simple.

but the rules were the same so if the floor used in Aus complied to the rules, it would not have needed changing for Malaysia, would it.

Your murder comparison is not relevant because you are comparing judicial laws with F1 rules. One could go on arguing for days the dissimilarities between the two. Sporting rules are rarely as stringent as judicial laws, especially in F1 where rules are re-written and re-interpreted several times a season.

agreed.

FIA laws and judicial laws are very different and the FIA are a lot more flexible about how they interperet their laws.

its really not going around in circles about. as I say, we all know they were naughty but they got away with it. the FIA would have been quite within their rights to impound the cars after Aus until this was resolved and a new test devised that ensured cars complied with the rules in which case, there would have been no dispute and the Ferraris would have been disqualified.

that didnt happen and nobody is calling for them to be penalised. it would be nice if people accept that what they were doing contravened the rules but complied with the testing procedures but if people cant accept that then thats their problem.

end of the road for this discussion I think.

22nd August 2007, 13:45

we all know they were naughty but they got away with it.

No, you think they were 'naughty'.

I, on the other hand, think they were smart.

There is no regulation forbidding smart thinking.

Since no punishment and no action was taken against Ferrari by the FIA, the latter judgement seems more appropriate.

Flat.tyres

22nd August 2007, 14:08

No, you think they were 'naughty'.

I, on the other hand, think they were smart.

There is no regulation forbidding smart thinking.

Since no punishment and no action was taken against Ferrari by the FIA, the latter judgement seems more appropriate.

so, on the one hand you get anally legal spouting rubbish till everyone is bored into submission and on the other hand you say they were smart implying they found a way to get around the testing proceedure which implies that they were breaking the rules :rolleyes:

dont bother answering, I'll lose the will to live if you come out with one of your pointless legal definitions again.