FIA hearing - Mclaren out of WCC 2007 *merged*

[wmcot]

What he has said is that Ferrari confiscated his laptop which means he cannot provide certain pieces of information that he did have.

Then shouldn't the FIA have copies of his emails? Perhaps they're somewhere in the paddock at Fuji? :) :)

[ArrowsFA1]

My point is that we shouldn't mixed the two different articles that talk about two different events
That rather spookily echoes what was said about the floor email & the 780-page dossier :p : ...that they were two different events :)

However, you're right. There are two things here - Stepney's emails to the FIA about the floor, and him being in possession of McLaren information.

[Flat.tyres]

Let's see:


http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19721.html

The above part is about the emails Stepney sent to the FIA at the start of the season telling them about the floor.


http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19720.html

The above is about his claim of passing McLaren info to Ferrari, and he acknowledges that he can't support his claim with anything because "there are no e-mails or anything".

My point is that we shouldn't mixed the two different articles that talk about two different events:
1). Stepney's emails to the FIA, that are allegedly on his confiscated laptop.
2). Stepney claiming that he gave info to some Ferrari team members, but acknowledging that there is no proof to it.

I just felt that you were mixing the two events and I tried to clear it up. Hope it worked. :)

I actually agree ioan.

As Tamburello says, if NS had of gone to the FIA with the whistle blowing allergation, then it would have been dealt with and no animosity would have developed between McLaren and Ferrari.

But he did and the FIA, for some inexplicable reason chose to do nothing.

We now know this was the wrong choice of action because subsequent to this, NS felt compelled to pass the information to McLaren who asked for clarification and the FIA were compelled to issue a statement that such a device was clearly illegal.

Lets take the dossier as a seperate case for now and just look at this issue and the ramifications that enschewed.

We, on this forum, cannot answer why the FIA did nothing but we can speculate why they ignored the allergation from one of the most respected members of the F1 community at the time. Nigel Stepney was a demi-god within the Ferrari camp and I find it fantastic that after a senior person within the FIA was aware of the attempted breach of regulations, that they did nothing before or after the race. The case of Honda springs to mind where they quite clearly had privilidged information prior to the race, allowed the stewards to pass the car against standard scruitineering procedures and then went in with some new ones where they new they would expose the breaking of the rules.

If Honda were guilty of trying to get around the rules in this fashion, and the FIA were aware that Ferrari were trying the same thing, then they should have been hauled up for it shouldn't they. At the very least, Charlie could have phoned Jean and tipped him off that the cat was out of the bag about their moving floor.

Yet, they did nothing until McLaren became involved.

So, lets treat this as two different instances as you suggest.

1. Pre-McLaren involvement where it is just NS, the FIA and Ferrari
2. Post McLaren Involvement where an official clarification was lodged.

Is that fair?

[Flat.tyres]

"As far as I can see" doth not a fact maketh.

The fact is that the FIA looked at the Ferrari floor at Melbourne and passed the floor as being legal.

This is the most damning statement yet.

The FIA looked at the floor as you say and deemed it to be legal even though they were in posession of information to the contrary supplied by NS. Nigels credability at the time was not in doubt as this is before McLaren were involved.

So, the FIA have Nigels info, have said that the floor looks suspicious but not done anything about it.

Then, McLaren raise the issue with the FIA. The FIA now have no choice but to release a statement saying that such a floor would indeed be illegal and Ferrari changed it.

Here is the question based on the facts then.

Q. Knowing that the floor was illegal in Australia, how could the FIA pass it and then say it was illegal a few days later?


That is doing something.

You say they did nothing.....are you sure it's just that they didn't do what you would have liked them to do?

Whatever the outcome of the FIA's actions in Melbourne, trying to blame the FIA for the sins of Stepney and Mclaren is sad.

That is a fact.

Mclaren have committed a disgraceful act.

That is also a fact.

Sorry to have to bother you with that, but you do like facts, don't you?

Lets look at this issue in it's seperate stages. I am using these two statements by you as a guideline.


Had the FIA independently investigated the Ferrari floor after recieving a whistle-blowing email, then there would be no ill-feeling from Ferrari towards Mclaren (well, not regarding the email anyway.......admittedly there would be from the last 10 years).


Actually, it's a big problem.

Had the whistle been blown in the direction of the FIA, then there would be no problem.

Much as he would love to be the sole arbitor of all things, Ron Dennis is not the head of organising body of world motorsport and therefore his organisation was the incorrect recipient.

These are your words are they not? Can you please either explain now why this matter was not dealt with along the course of action you suggested by the FIA. NS did exactly as you suggested and contacted the FIA first.

The question is.

Q. Knowing that the floor was illegal in Australia, how could the FIA pass it and then say it was illegal a few days later?

If you choose not to answer this question then just say so but I am just using your opinions at the time of what should have, and actually did, happen.

[ioan]

That rather spookily echoes what was said about the floor email & the 780-page dossier :p : ...that they were two different events :)

If you talk about Stepney emailing the FIA than I agree.
If however you are talking about Stepney emailing McLaren and subsequently giving them the 780 pages technical dossier on the F2007 than I do not agree , as it is passing info to the opposition in both times.


However, you're right. There are two things here - Stepney's emails to the FIA about the floor,

And this may be proved true. But I wouldn't hold my breath.


and him being in possession of McLaren information.

This could be true.
But there is no proof that Ferrari ever got that info. (How does that sound for a change?! ;) )

[ioan]

But he did and the FIA, for some inexplicable reason chose to do nothing.

Let's wait until this is proved to be true. For now we only have Stepney's word, and he has zero credibility.

[ioan]

But he did and the FIA, for some inexplicable reason chose to do nothing.

Let's wait until this is proved to be true. For now we only have Stepney's word, and he has as much credibility as Bush saying that there are mass destruction weapons in Irak. :D

[Flat.tyres]

Let's wait until this is proved to be true. For now we only have Stepney's word, and he has as much credibility as Bush saying that there are mass destruction weapons in Irak. :D

Now that is below the belt. Nobody has less credibility than the Bush, Blair illusion show :laugh:

I admit that it hasn't been confirmed by the FIA that the chain of events were as NS says but the statement is very public from NS and if it were false, then I feel the FIA would stamp him down and do him for slander. Max is quite vocal with his personal statements and I cannot imagine him keeping stum over a matter which pulls the whole role and bias of the FIA into disrepute. (If true of course)

So, if it is false, the FIA need to string Nigel up from the highest heights and sue his arse.

But, if it is true, where does this leave the FIA?

[ArrowsFA1]

Let's wait until this is proved to be true.
We may be waiting a long time because it seems that certain parties involved in all of this may not want it looked at at all, for very different reasons :dozey:

[ioan]

We may be waiting a long time because it seems that certain parties involved in all of this may not want it looked at at all, for very different reasons :dozey:

Stepney might be heading for the prison so maybe the FIA feels that there is no need to go public over this matter anymore.
Or maybe Bernie wants us to concentrate on the season finale and not on Stepney?

Who knows?!

[Flat.tyres]

We may be waiting a long time because it seems that certain parties involved in all of this may not want it looked at at all, for very different reasons :dozey:

So, why might that be then ;)

[markabilly]

We may be waiting a long time because it seems that certain parties involved in all of this may not want it looked at at all, for very different reasons :dozey:

Careful...you are begining to sound like...... :D :D ... well what i mean is....


Another voice beginning to see the light--it is one thing to debate about what should be---an interesting intellectual excercise but only that :D

It is another to debate about what will be...and in this case that is an entirely different question

But I have never said "conspiracy", but i have refferred you to what has been acknowledged for several hundred years as to the finest and greatest book on politics, and the "how to" manual used by far too many to conduct matters of state and business. And those who use it the best, never acknowledge or appear to use it at all....

[markabilly]

So, why might that be then ;)
Oh grasshopper, have you learned nothing....

[SGWilko]

.....have you learned nothing....

[Rant]I'm sorry, but this next point has zip all to do with F1....

But really, learned nothing from what? You on about your 'book' again.

Why don't you just declare you have been born again, and start banging on about the Bible, at least you might have a little credibility then.

I am sorry if this insults you, but you KEEP on about the book, and Kool Aid and all manner of irrelevant stuff, you are really starting to yank my chain.......[/End Rant]

[BDunnell]

This 'book' has just been referred to in another thread. I'm now at a loss. Is it Mein Kampf? Is it the Bible? Is it The Paddy Ashdown Diaries? I don't know.

[Garry Walker]

This 'book' has just been referred to in another thread. I'm now at a loss. Is it Mein Kampf? Is it the Bible? Is it The Paddy Ashdown Diaries? I don't know.

Stepneys book will probably be as full of lies and manipulation as the bible is.

[SGWilko]

Stepneys book will probably be as full of lies and manipulation as the bible is.

Some reckon the first page of the Bible is missing, and that it should read;

'All characters in this publication are ficticious. Any similarities with actual people or events.........'

;)

I was just completing this sentence when a rogue lightening bollllltttttttttttttttttttttt

[ioan]

This 'book' has just been referred to in another thread. I'm now at a loss. Is it Mein Kampf? Is it the Bible? Is it The Paddy Ashdown Diaries? I don't know.

Mein Kampf wasn't around for hundreds of years, nor was the The Paddy Ashdown Diaries ( I suppose).

[markabilly]

[Rant]I'm sorry, but this next point has zip all to do with F1....

But really, learned nothing from what? You on about your 'book' again.

Why don't you just declare you have been born again, and start banging on about the Bible, at least you might have a little credibility then.

I am sorry if this insults you, but you KEEP on about the book, and Kool Aid and all manner of irrelevant stuff, you are really starting to yank my chain.......[/End Rant]

I understand your frustration, but to the people like Max and Bernie,"merely playing favorites" is a child's game, but he would prefer you think that, rather than the other......kool aid is just a synomyn for the necessary propaganda....as noted in the "book"

Indeed "playing favorites" is to say there is a conspiracy among folks to see the favorite win because of favoritism and loyalty....and I have never said that, though many others have on this forum.

For example, do any of you really that Bernie is in "man-love" with LH or a fan of LH when he goes on about wanting to see him win? many of you have posted thoughts to that effect. Well the words come tumbling out of his mouth, that should be evidence enough...one might rightfully think....

Wrong--bernie would roast him in a heartbeat, if he thought the benefit in terms of the overall health of the organization to be worth it and necessary. Same for ferrari and same for Mac--why do you think that MS lost the second place in the wdc after bumping jac? It was for the purposes and benefit of the franchise, MS had bumped one time too many, and to let it go on, would damage creditability---same for the monaco pole incident.

Never forget that RD is heavily, heavily invested in "the franchise" and his own health and wealth depends on how well the franchise of formula one does--never forget the investment necessary to enter the franchise (and I am not talking the technical cost of cars and people, I am talking gaining approval and paying those fees to get in the door)

Rd would dump his favorite son in a heartbeat if he thought it best for the franchise and his own interests

Sometimes it appears Ron forgets this, and does some things such as the breakaway series...the 100 million dollar fine has served to remind him of what his behavior and that of his team needs to be doing.....

So engage in the debate all you wish, but as noted by Arrows some parties may not want it looked at



And in answer to the other question, the "book" I refer to is Il Principe ( The Prince ) a political treatise by the Florentine public servant and political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli, that is still taught in unversities world wide, and practised by many.....

So I suppose all these others who use it daily (including politicans in merry ole England)--and who teach it...are just idiots, lunatics and conspiracy nuts who know nothing about nothing :D

like I said before how could I have known more than two weeks before the second hearing, exactly what would happen? A telephone tap...some special something insider knowledge of the "conspiracry"?? No just a book available to anyone, and taught even in high school government classes

To be rid of such stuff would require serious change in F1, for example, an open race policy with only a few of the entry requirments presently imposed to become part of the franchise...and other such stuff, but very "do-able".

So if you want justice, fair play and decisions based on facts and not fear of harming the organization aka the "franchise" (and to bernie that is the real "f" of f1) then argue about how to change it, to be rid of the other.....many other sports have done so......soccer, football, and so forth.......

or sit in the quick sand of frustration, debating about technical merits as though they really mattered or debates about if Bernie or max hates RD, or wants ferrari to win, because they love ferrari and hate Mac.......I admit that such debates are fun and interesting.....

[Flat.tyres]

Oh, I thought the book was Red mist, a publication that is likely to polarise opinions to it's accuracy as much as the Bible has :D

[ArrowsFA1]

Oh, I thought the book was Red mist, a publication that is likely to polarise opinions to it's accuracy as much as the Bible has :D
You mean this one (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63166).

On another note:

World champion Fernando Alonso met with the Modena district attorney in Italy today, to answer questions about the Ferrari espionage case.
Alonso met with magistrate Giuseppe Tibis, who is in charge of the criminal investigation surrounding former Ferrari engineer Nigel Stepney.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63178

This is the most damning statement yet.

The FIA looked at the floor as you say and deemed it to be legal even though they were in posession of information to the contrary supplied by NS. Nigels credability at the time was not in doubt as this is before McLaren were involved.

So, the FIA have Nigels info, have said that the floor looks suspicious but not done anything about it.

Then, McLaren raise the issue with the FIA. The FIA now have no choice but to release a statement saying that such a floor would indeed be illegal and Ferrari changed it.

Here is the question based on the facts then.

Q. Knowing that the floor was illegal in Australia, how could the FIA pass it and then say it was illegal a few days later?



Lets look at this issue in it's seperate stages. I am using these two statements by you as a guideline.





These are your words are they not? Can you please either explain now why this matter was not dealt with along the course of action you suggested by the FIA. NS did exactly as you suggested and contacted the FIA first.

The question is.

Q. Knowing that the floor was illegal in Australia, how could the FIA pass it and then say it was illegal a few days later?

If you choose not to answer this question then just say so but I am just using your opinions at the time of what should have, and actually did, happen.

We do not know that the floor was illegal. On the contrary, the official records state quite the opposite.

Facts, dear boy, just the facts.

You keep saying it was illegal, but I prefer to use the judgement and verdict of the officials, who said it was.

If Stepney's claims that he contacted the FIA are true (and it is funny how he only says that he did now) and was told that Whiting would look at the floor at the Australian GP, then have you any proof, real proof, that Whiting did not look at it?

All I hear from you is that the FIA should have acted.

I say that they did and you cannot accept the verdict.

You saying that the floor was illegal does not make it a fact.

The FIA passing it as legal in Melbourne does make it a fact.

[Flat.tyres]

We do not know that the floor was illegal. On the contrary, the official records state quite the opposite.

Facts, dear boy, just the facts.

You keep saying it was illegal, but I prefer to use the judgement and verdict of the officials, who said it was.

If Stepney's claims that he contacted the FIA are true (and it is funny how he only says that he did now) and was told that Whiting would look at the floor at the Australian GP, then have you any proof, real proof, that Whiting did not look at it?

All I hear from you is that the FIA should have acted.

I say that they did and you cannot accept the verdict.

You saying that the floor was illegal does not make it a fact.

The FIA passing it as legal in Melbourne does make it a fact.

Tamburello

You are ducking the question yet again.

You claimed that had NS gone to the FIA instead of McLaren, then this would have been resolved the correct way did you not?

He did and it wasn't.

It wasn't until McLaren raised the same issue that the FIA acted and Ferrari changed their floor.

Which bit of this do you now dispute?

Of course we don't have things like proof that CW didn't do something but there are alternatives.

1. He didn't look at it raises the question of WHY NOT?
2. He did look at it which raises the question of why he passed it?

If you continue to duck the question then we can forget this subject because it's never going to go anywhere is it. I hope you will answer it though with your opinion on why the FIA failed to act when NS did the right thing and only acted when it was brought to their attention by another competitor.

[SGWilko]

It would be nice, if a team, any F1 team took out a civil legal case to find out the truth about this.......

[BDunnell]

If Stepney's claims that he contacted the FIA are true (and it is funny how he only says that he did now) and was told that Whiting would look at the floor at the Australian GP, then have you any proof, real proof, that Whiting did not look at it?

Well, the veracity of this ought to be easy for the FIA to prove one way or the other.

[Flat.tyres]

Well, the veracity of this ought to be easy for the FIA to prove one way or the other.

You would think so unless they didn't want to for some reason ;)

Tamburello

You are ducking the question yet again.

You claimed that had NS gone to the FIA instead of McLaren, then this would have been resolved the correct way did you not?

He did and it wasn't.

And why wasn't it resolved the correct way?

Oh, because the FIA did not immediately disqualify Ferrari?

Except that is not 'the' correct way, only the way you would have liked them to have resolved it.

There is a huge difference between the two.

Unfortunately, I've got news for you.....just because somebody makes a complaint about something does not mean it will therefore be changed to suit that person.

That's called life.

If only Stepney & Mclaren had realised that, they wouldn't be looking at having their reputation in tatters.

If you continue to duck the question then we can forget this subject because it's never going to go anywhere is it. I hope you will answer it though with your opinion on why the FIA failed to act when NS did the right thing and only acted when it was brought to their attention by another competitor.

What does it matter what I 'think' as to why the FIA did not do what you would have liked them to do?

They did what they did. They looked at it and took no action.

I for one, can accept that.

[Flat.tyres]

And why wasn't it resolved the correct way?

that is what we are trying to ascertain


Oh, because the FIA did not immediately disqualify Ferrari?

Why did it get to this situation in the first place. They could have informed Ferrari not to use a device they considered illegal, they could have nabbed them after the race as they did Honda. They did neither but only acted when McLaren got involved and they couldn't deny it any longer.


Except that is not 'the' correct way, only the way you would have liked them to have resolved it.

Well, according to you, NS did the correct thing and now you dispute the fact. So, give us a reason why they appear not to have acted until McLaren got involved?


There is a huge difference between the two.

Thats why I asking for an explanation. Either a moveable floor was illegal as the FIA have publicly stated or it isn't. If it is, why did the FIA, armed with the relevant information, not deal with the situation at Melbourne. It's not rocket science.


Unfortunately, I've got news for you.....just because somebody makes a complaint about something does not mean it will therefore be changed to suit that person.

That's called life.

If only Stepney & Mclaren had realised that, they wouldn't be looking at having their reputation in tatters.

But they did change the way that the cars were tested on the basis of Nigels information but not until another team had to get involved. Why?

Look, you cannot answer the question can you. You have an opinion that holds no water that they looked at the car and decided it was OK even though they were in posession of information that it contravened the rules and that they later admitted would be illegal.

There is no explanation apart from the obvious so stop digging. It's banged to rights. They chose not to take action until forced to do so when it became known that another team had the same information they were privvy to.

[Flat.tyres]

What does it matter what I 'think' as to why the FIA did not do what you would have liked them to do?

They did what they did. They looked at it and took no action.

I for one, can accept that.

I can accept that you accept that but I can't.

But, we have got as far as we can so best leave it there.

[ioan]

Fast google search for FACT:



Generally, a fact is something that is the case, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.

The word fact derives from the Latin Factum, and was first used in English with the same meaning: "a thing done or performed", a use that is now obsolete.[3]

The common usage, "something that has really occurred or is the case", dates from the middle of the sixteenth century.[4] Fact is also synonymous with truth or reality, as distinguishable from conclusions or opinions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Or:



1. An honest observation.
2. Something actual as opposed to invented.
* In this story, the Gettysburg Address is a fact, but the rest is fiction.
3. Something which has become real.
* The promise of television became a fact in the 1920s.
4. Something concrete used as a basis for further interpretation.
* Let's look at the facts of the case before deciding.
5. An objective consensus on a fundamental reality that has been agreed upon by a substantial number of people.
* There is no doubting the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun.
6. Information about a particular subject.
* The facts about space travel.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fact

I'll be back later to check out the "facts". :p :

[Flat.tyres]

Fast google search for FACT:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Or:


http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fact

I'll be back later to check out the "facts". :p :

NS blew the whistle on Ferrari to the FIA.

They did nothing.

NS went to Ferrari who blew the whistle.

They did something.

Facts :p :

t
Well, according to you, NS did the correct thing and now you dispute the fact.

On the contrary. I do not dispute that Stepney went to the FIA. I do not dispute that he should have gone to the FIA.

What I dispute is your ascertain that the FIA did nothing. The Ferrari was passed as legal in Australia because the testing procedure results said it was.

What I dispute is that, having acted the way the FIA did, it is somehow acceptable for Nigel Stepney to have then gone to Mclaren.

What I dispute is that it is acceptable, once having gone to the authorities to alert them to something you do not think is right, to then not accept the actions of the authorities and assume a position of righteousness in direct contradiction to the actions undertaken by oneself, in this case, Nigel Stepney & Mclaren.

The FIA is the ruling body of Formula One. Like it or lump it, but that is a fact. It is not up to anyone in the F1 paddock, Jean Todt, Frank Williams, Flavio Briatore, nor Ron Dennis or anybody else to not accept that.

The FIA define the regulations and the FIA alone can decide what is legal and what is illegal at any given time.

The FIA defined the Ferrari as legal at Melbourne. Any 'opinion' as to why that was the case is not important and has no relevance to the breaking of the sporting code by Mclaren.

NS went to Ferrari who blew the whistle.

They did something.

Facts :p :

Yes, they sacked him.

That's a fact, I grant you.

[BDunnell]

On the contrary. I do not dispute that Stepney went to the FIA. I do not dispute that he should have gone to the FIA.

What I dispute is your ascertain that the FIA did nothing. The Ferrari was passed as legal in Australia because the testing procedure results said it was.

What I dispute is that, having acted the way the FIA did, it is somehow acceptable for Nigel Stepney to have then gone to Mclaren.

What I dispute is that it is acceptable, once having gone to the authorities to alert them to something you do not think is right, to then not accept the actions of the authorities and assume a position of righteousness in direct contradiction to the actions undertaken by oneself, in this case, Nigel Stepney & Mclaren.

The FIA is the ruling body of Formula One. Like it or lump it, but that is a fact. It is not up to anyone in the F1 paddock, Jean Todt, Frank Williams, Flavio Briatore, nor Ron Dennis or anybody else to not accept that.

The FIA define the regulations and the FIA alone can decide what is legal and what is illegal at any given time.

The FIA defined the Ferrari as legal at Melbourne. Any 'opinion' as to why that was the case is not important and has no relevance to the breaking of the sporting code by Mclaren.

This is all very well and good, but how can you personally justify the FIA's actions? We all know that similar rulings have been made in the past, but in rather different circumstances to this one. The utterly arbitrary nature of the FIA's actions, if it was notified and did nothing before changing its mind, hardly shows it in a good light whatever the outcome.

This is all very well and good, but how can you personally justify the FIA's actions? We all know that similar rulings have been made in the past, but in rather different circumstances to this one. The utterly arbitrary nature of the FIA's actions, if it was notified and did nothing before changing its mind, hardly shows it in a good light whatever the outcome.

It really does not matter if the FIA is shown in a good light or not.

They are the rule-makers, they are the authority, and that's the way it is.

Second guessing their reasons for their actions may be considered as an interesting pastime to some, but it does not change anything as to the reality, which is that the FIA does not have to explain itself.

Or, putting another way, the lord works in mysterious ways, but he is still the lord.

[Flat.tyres]

Yes, they sacked him.

That's a fact, I grant you.

Slip of the finger, of course I ment McLaren :p :

[Flat.tyres]

On the contrary. I do not dispute that Stepney went to the FIA. I do not dispute that he should have gone to the FIA.

Good, we agree there then. It's a start.


What I dispute is your ascertain that the FIA did nothing. The Ferrari was passed as legal in Australia because the testing procedure results said it was.

Strike 2, we agree again. They did pass it as legal although they had Nigels information.


What I dispute is that, having acted the way the FIA did, it is somehow acceptable for Nigel Stepney to have then gone to Mclaren.

Hang on, we have a respected figure of F1 saying that something in his car is illegal and the FIA do nothing. Did he have a choice apart from to sweep it under the carpet?


What I dispute is that it is acceptable, once having gone to the authorities to alert them to something you do not think is right, to then not accept the actions of the authorities and assume a position of righteousness in direct contradiction to the actions undertaken by oneself, in this case, Nigel Stepney & Mclaren.

If he had conviction and the correct authority did nothing, then I'm glad he has more balls than you.


The FIA is the ruling body of Formula One. Like it or lump it, but that is a fact. It is not up to anyone in the F1 paddock, Jean Todt, Frank Williams, Flavio Briatore, nor Ron Dennis or anybody else to not accept that.

They do, you are again correct. no matter what the right or wrong of the matter is, Max weilds his power, as you say, like the hand of God.

The FIA define the regulations and the FIA alone can decide what is legal and what is illegal at any given time.

The FIA defined the Ferrari as legal at Melbourne. Any 'opinion' as to why that was the case is not important and has no relevance to the breaking of the sporting code by Mclaren.[/quote]

Yes, they defined it legal in Melbourne and then ruled that the moving floor that Stepney complained about was illegal. Can you read that. They said moving floors that Stepney said ferrari were using are ILLEGAL

That is the point you fail to admit. They took no action until McLaren were involved and I think it is fair to assume wouldn't have done if there was no request from McLaren.

How do you explain that your all singing, all dancing FIA failed to act on a whistle blow from Stepney until McLaren challenged them and then acted.

I know you are not as silly as to not understand the question so whats your take on this. Why the change of heart from ignorance to definition of illegality?

[Bagwan]

They didn't define it illegal after Melbourne at all .
They changed the method of inspection to preclude it's use , as , that much flex would then be illegal .

[BDunnell]

It really does not matter if the FIA is shown in a good light or not.

They are the rule-makers, they are the authority, and that's the way it is.

Second guessing their reasons for their actions may be considered as an interesting pastime to some, but it does not change anything as to the reality, which is that the FIA does not have to explain itself.

Or, putting another way, the lord works in mysterious ways, but he is still the lord.

I hope you don't apply the same logic to political leaders.

Personally, I would rather that sporting authorities made sensible, reasoned decisions that portray a decent public face. I don't believe the FIA has managed to achieve any part of that.

[Flat.tyres]

They didn't define it illegal after Melbourne at all .
They changed the method of inspection to preclude it's use , as , that much flex would then be illegal .

Actually no. They said that such a device would be Illegal. No questions. This is in a press release from the FIA.

They changed the testing procedures to ensure that teams would not be able to use an illegal device without it being spotted a bit like putting cameras in class to stop pupils looking over others shoulders.

unfortunatly, they had already been told that a team were attempting to use an illegal device but ignored it until McLaren raised the issue.

Question is, WHY?

I am not disputing that a moveable floor is illegal as Charlie has said so.

I am not disputing that Stepney blew the whistle to the FIA before the Aus GP and even Tamburello admits this.

The question I'm asking is why they didn't act when Stepney told them but only when they were forced to by McLaren by which time, Ferrari had walked the Aus GP.

[BDunnell]

I am not disputing that a moveable floor is illegal as Charlie has said so.

Neither, it ought to pointed out again in the interests of balance, should it be disputed that the floor was legal when Ferrari ran it.

[Flat.tyres]

Neither, it ought to pointed out again in the interests of balance, should it be disputed that the floor was legal when Ferrari ran it.

I had a lot of problems with this arguement but have rationalised it now.

To me, if you do 90 down the motorway, it's illegal but you haven't been caught.

In this case, Ferrari were doing 90 but the FIA speed gun was only capable of reading 70 so couldn't do anything.

In actual fact, it couldn't be proved legal with the technology the FIA employed so has to be deemed within the parameters.

If the FIA had of acted when Stepney contacted them as they did when McLaren contacted them, then we would have had a different outcome. (opinion)

[airshifter]

Neither, it ought to pointed out again in the interests of balance, should it be disputed that the floor was legal when Ferrari ran it.


I haven't seen any direct quotes that really clarify this matter, but thought it was similar to the Ferrari flexing front wing from last year. In essence, it wasn't legal per the intention of the rule, but the testing method did not properly test all aspects and allowed it, thus it was legal until the testing method was changed.

I think the problem with these type of things is that it usually ends up being a matter of whether the device in question complies with "the spirit of the regulation". I would think by now the FIA would realize that many teams will find any loophole to allow them to run something they want to run. Unless they make for tighter testing, it will continue.

[BDunnell]

In response to both airshifter and Flat.tyres, the reason I don't have a problem with the movable floor is because there is some degree of precedent going back years. There was Jordan's launch control in 1999, for instance, over which Jordan requested clarification. What is different this time is that there was not, allegedly, a whistleblower involved in the Jordan case who alerted the FIA to the matter, and whom they supposedly ignored.

[ioan]

I stopped for a moment and asked myself why didn't the FIA do anything about the Ferrari floor in Melbourne even if they knew that it might be designed to brake "the spirit of the regulation" (as airshifter defined it), although it was complying with the testing methods in the rules.

First of all they couldn't have possibly proved what happens with the floor when the cars go faster than x kmh, so they couldn't have proved that that the parts use was circumventing the rules.

Second point, and the most important one is that the FIA can't just change on 2 days before a race the rules that they set months before.

They did what was sensible and made a change in the testing methods for the next race, which happened to be in 3 weeks time, so enough time for everybody to comply with it.

I think that things were as simple as that.

It's up to you now to agree or disagree with me. :)

[Bagwan]

2 days before the race , Ioan ?
Is that when Stepney is said to have alerted the FIA ?

[Roamy]

how can a infraction be serious enough to warrant a 100 mil penalty and the drivers keep their points. Who is the half wit here??

[Flat.tyres]

I stopped for a moment and asked myself why didn't the FIA do anything about the Ferrari floor in Melbourne even if they knew that it might be designed to brake "the spirit of the regulation" (as airshifter defined it), although it was complying with the testing methods in the rules.

First of all they couldn't have possibly proved what happens with the floor when the cars go faster than x kmh, so they couldn't have proved that that the parts use was circumventing the rules.

Second point, and the most important one is that the FIA can't just change on 2 days before a race the rules that they set months before.

They did what was sensible and made a change in the testing methods for the next race, which happened to be in 3 weeks time, so enough time for everybody to comply with it.

I think that things were as simple as that.

It's up to you now to agree or disagree with me. :)

I agree with your post ioan and if you're right, it could possibly explain why they took no action for the melbourne GP. In fact, it's the only reason that makes any sense.

Does anyone know when NS went to the FIA?

[Bagwan]

how can a infraction be serious enough to warrant a 100 mil penalty and the drivers keep their points. Who is the half wit here??

Yer dang tootin' , cowboy .

I guess Fernando and Pedro must have gotten it in writing that Max wouldn't take away those points .

[airshifter]

BDunnel and ioan,

That is what I feel also. Without clarification as to what exactly the "spirit" of the regulation is, it is left open to be misused whether intentionally or unintentionally. Personally I think often teams know that if the testing standard doesn't detect it they will at least get a warning before the change is enforced, which is why they do it.

As for ioans point concerning timeframe, if they changed the testing just before a GP there is also a chance that Ferrari might not have been the only ones pushing the envelope. It would hardly be fair to DQ teams based on what was deemed legal by inspection, whether that inspection tested the full intent of the regulation or not.


I think all the top teams push the envelope intentionally, knowing full well that every little thing they do makes a difference and the risk is worth taking. After all this is F1, and they don't get to the top staying well below the line drawn in the sand. ;)

[Bagwan]

I agree with your post ioan and if you're right, it could possibly explain why they took no action for the melbourne GP. In fact, it's the only reason that makes any sense.

Does anyone know when NS went to the FIA?

Remember , Ron didn't protest , but rather , asked for clarification .

That brings to my mind the question of whether there actually is facility for a member of a team to protest thier own car .
For a team to protest , they must assume the responsibility of paying for the cost of the steward's investigation , should the team be proven to be innocent of the infraction , as I understand it .

Had it happened as Stepney asserts , McLaren should have known categorically that the floor was , in fact illegal .
As it was , they didn't protest formally , but instead asked if they could use such a system .
Max duly said no , and changed the regulations .

Now , if they had the documents since March , one might think they might have already known , which puts Stepney's assertion a fabrication , or has them conspiring to take away a component from their direct rivals , just as the season starts .

It also falls right in with "there are no red parts on this car" .

[ArrowsFA1]

Something I hadn't known before - The FIA flex test used at the 2007 Australian GP dated back to 2000 (according to Craig Scarborough in Autosport). Apparently that test could only detect upwards deflection of the floor.

Wasn't Ferrari's floor designed to move downwards :confused:

[Flat.tyres]

BDunnel and ioan,

That is what I feel also. Without clarification as to what exactly the "spirit" of the regulation is, it is left open to be misused whether intentionally or unintentionally. Personally I think often teams know that if the testing standard doesn't detect it they will at least get a warning before the change is enforced, which is why they do it.

As for ioans point concerning timeframe, if they changed the testing just before a GP there is also a chance that Ferrari might not have been the only ones pushing the envelope. It would hardly be fair to DQ teams based on what was deemed legal by inspection, whether that inspection tested the full intent of the regulation or not.


I think all the top teams push the envelope intentionally, knowing full well that every little thing they do makes a difference and the risk is worth taking. After all this is F1, and they don't get to the top staying well below the line drawn in the sand. ;)

As I have said, the precident has been set by the FIA for receiving information that a competitor is breaking the spirit of the rules but managing to adhere to current testing policies.

Honda.

The FIA learnt that they were operating a fuel system that "potentially" could allow the car to run underweight. They allowed them to race and even be scruitinised and then went in again and tipped the car upside down.

I remember Max calling them cheats and everything but eventually it was acknowledged that it wasn't proven that they had cheated, only that they couldn't prove that the car was run at the minimum weight without the aid of electronic data.

If the electronic data was admisible, then Honda would have been able to make the case that they had in fact ran at least minimum weight throughout the GP.

As for other teams, there was more than a suggestion that several teams were running a similar fuel cell.

I see this case as less hard and fast as the Ferrari one. Honda can run whatever fuel cell they want and the FIA concluded that the fuel cell was legal but had them on a technicality because they couldn't provide electronic information to back up their claims that they had complied.

In this case, the FIA later ruled that a moveable floor was not legal but choose not to take action at the Aus GP.

The only logical, if questionable, answer I can give as to why they didn't is as ioan says, that NS only told them just before the GP although I would still have thought that an illegally operating floor is an illegally operating floor and they could have taken the action they did with Honda.

[SGWilko]

There was Jordan's launch control in 1999, for instance, over which Jordan requested clarification.


Indeed. Apply that to the Ferrari scenario. NS Stepney has gone on record to state that Ferrari had NO intention of 'running it by the FIA' for clarification.

That rings alarm bells to me.

[SGWilko]

Second point, and the most important one is that the FIA can't just change on 2 days before a race the rules that they set months before.



Eh? They managed just fine thank you very much when it suited them - vis a vis the Michelin tyre measuring issue didn't they?

[ioan]

The only logical, if questionable, answer I can give as to why they didn't is as ioan says, that NS only told them just before the GP although I would still have thought that an illegally operating floor is an illegally operating floor and they could have taken the action they did with Honda.

I'll make an accolade on the Honda affair, please note that this is no invitation to start discussing the matter again and I would appreciate if we don't go down that road AGAIN. It's only to show the differences between the 2 cases.
Honda were sanctioned because their car was under the permitted minimum weight when drained of fuel, which fuel can't be used as ballast as stated in the regs. Which means that their car was illegal no matter how much fuel was or wasn't in the car. ;)

Problem is that emptying the Ferrari fuel cell wouldn't have helped the FIA with anything in the floor case, because the floor passed the tests, unlike the Honda that was too light when weighed.

[ioan]

Eh? They managed just fine thank you very much when it suited them - vis a vis the Michelin tyre measuring issue didn't they?

No they didn't, if I remember correctly Michelin had a fortnight at disposal to make the necessary changes, and I would stress that no one was punished for what they did prior to the changes!

[ioan]

Indeed. Apply that to the Ferrari scenario. NS Stepney has gone on record to state that Ferrari had NO intention of 'running it by the FIA' for clarification.

That rings alarm bells to me.

The part was complying with the testing procedures, plus it was tested and visible to the stewards under scrutineering, unlike Jordan's launch control which couldn't be seen during the scrutineering and thus might escape testing by the stewards.

I hope you see the difference between a floor that is tested during scrutineering (and declared legal if it passes the test) and a launch control system that isn't tested during pre-race scrutineering and thus the team needs to ask the FIA to pronounce themselves over it's legality.

[SGWilko]

No they didn't, if I remember correctly Michelin had a fortnight at disposal to make the necessary changes, and I would stress that no one was punished for what they did prior to the changes!

A whole two weeks to re-design tyres used by the majority of teams on the grid..........

How about the mass damper in the Renault then? Renault even had that device ratified by the FIA, but was then all of a sudden deemed illegal.

If Ferrari had had their moving floor OK'd by the FIA before Melbourne, then yes, let them race it, but as they had not.........

[ioan]

A whole two weeks to re-design tyres used by the majority of teams on the grid..........

They managed to do it pretty easily, so I can't see your problem there. Many teams had to redesign their floors in a 2 and 1/2 weeks because the floor testing procedure changes.


How about the mass damper in the Renault then? Renault even had that device ratified by the FIA, but was then all of a sudden deemed illegal.

The mass damper wasn't deemed illegal just before the race week end either.


If Ferrari had had their moving floor OK'd by the FIA before Melbourne, then yes, let them race it, but as they had not.........

The floor was OK by the FIA before the race, all the cars need to pass scrutineering procedures, that involve also the testing of the floor, in order to be deemed legal. The Ferrari's did pass the scrutineering = their car was OK'd by the FIA.

Sometimes I feel like talking to deaf people around here. :rolleyes:

[SGWilko]

The part was complying with the testing procedures, plus it was tested and visible to the stewards under scrutineering, unlike Jordan's launch control which couldn't be seen during the scrutineering and thus might escape testing by the stewards.

I hope you see the difference between a floor that is tested during scrutineering (and declared legal if it passes the test) and a launch control system that isn't tested during pre-race scrutineering and thus the team needs to ask the FIA to pronounce themselves over it's legality.

Remind me, because I am really having difficulty here, why it was deemed Illegal after Australia? Bear in mind theat the rules were not re-written.....

As you answer that question, ask yourself if Ferrari had an advantage to gain by NOT having a device checked or - that had been very cleverly designed, by people paid gazillions to do such thing - by not telling the stewards (not paid gazillions and not necessary experts in the field of Fluid/aero dynamics, loads, tensions, torsions etc) what the device was doing, and why it was doing it..........

[ioan]

2 days before the race , Ioan ?
Is that when Stepney is said to have alerted the FIA ?

Stepney, allegedly, did alert the FIA earlier but the FIA can't test the cars for a race before Thursday.
I also doubt that they can change the rules based on accusation and without having a proof that those accusation were true.

[SGWilko]

Sometimes I feel like talking to deaf people around here. :rolleyes:

Do speak up sonny, bit mutton in me left lughole........

[ArrowsFA1]

Stepney has gone on record to state that Ferrari had NO intention of 'running it by the FIA' for clarification.
Teams frequently seek FIA clarification, or discuss technical issues with Charlie Whiting, so yes it does seem odd that Ferrari chose to do neither, despite a key team member (at that point) raising concerns over legality. That suggests the decision was made to run the car as it was because the team knew the existing FIA test would not detect the designed intent of the floor.

[ioan]

Remind me, because I am really having difficulty here,

No surprise.


why it was deemed Illegal after Australia?

It was never deemed illegal. If you however have proof of the Ferrari floor being deemed illegal, than maybe you will provide a link to an official statement stating that.


Bear in mind theat the rules were not re-written.....

The testing procedures were however revised, TWICE! And I believe that the testing procedures are part of the rules.


As you answer that question, ask yourself if Ferrari had an advantage to gain by NOT having a device checked or - that had been very cleverly designed, by people paid gazillions to do such thing - by not telling the stewards (not paid gazillions and not necessary experts in the field of Fluid/aero dynamics, loads, tensions, torsions etc) what the device was doing, and why it was doing it..........

THE DEVICE WAS CHECKED BEFORE THE RACE AND IT DID PASS THE SCRUTINEERING TESTS AS STATED BY THE RULES.

[SGWilko]

the FIA can't test the cars for a race before Thursday.



Thats not the day Max sees the Chiropodist is it? :dork:

[ioan]

Thats not the day Max sees the Chiropodist is it? :dork:

And some people do say that they are here to discuss! :rolleyes:

[SGWilko]

Teams frequently seek FIA clarification, or discuss technical issues with Charlie Whiting, so yes it does seem odd that Ferrari chose to do neither, despite a key team member (at that point) raising concerns over legality. That suggests the decision was made to run the car as it was because the team knew the existing FIA test would not detect the designed intent of the floor.

Good Lord, someone actually can see what I am getting at.......

[SGWilko]

And some people do say that they are here to discuss! :rolleyes:

Lost your SOH Ioan?

[ioan]

Lost your SOH Ioan?

No, just my patience.

[ioan]

Teams frequently seek FIA clarification, or discuss technical issues with Charlie Whiting, so yes it does seem odd that Ferrari chose to do neither, despite a key team member (at that point) raising concerns over legality. That suggests the decision was made to run the car as it was because the team knew the existing FIA test would not detect the designed intent of the floor.

Obviously Stepney was not one of the designers of the car and those who were qualified to take such decisions were OK with the solution they had developed.

[SGWilko]

Obviously Stepney was not one of the designers of the car and those who were qualified to take such decisions were OK with the solution they had developed.

You bet they were! Sheesh, the car was lightyears ahead of the field in Australia. And then come the rule clarification, and the necessary change to their mass damping floor not moveable but moveable nudge nudge wink wink say no more errrrrm, they are no longer light years ahead of the field.

And you claim you are losing patience..........

[ArrowsFA1]

Obviously Stepney was not one of the designers of the car and those who were qualified to take such decisions were OK with the solution they had developed.
ioan, up until February (in Stepney's own words):

I was the person responsible for the legality aspects of the car and each previous year I had always spoken to the Technical Director about any reservations I had on the legality of the cars, he would then go away to discuss the details and then come back later with the answers and explain to me where we stood. So this was a normal situation during the course of my duties. I decided in mid February to step down from my role as Technical Manager for various reasons one of which was this new way of approaching the regulations, I also declined to accept the responsibility in my new role of Team Performance Manager, of being responsible for the legality of the car, and made it clear to various other top team representatives that for me the car was illegal in a couple of areas. Nobody took any notice which was very frustrating.
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19721.html

[ioan]

ioan, up until February (in Stepney's own words):

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19721.html

Problem is that it's every time Stepney's own words.
From what I gathered from all that has been said is that he changed his opinion over what he wanted to do in the team from one week to the other between a factory based job and a track based job.
It may be that at that moment no one was taking him seriously anymore within the team because of his demeanor.
If not why should the same people whom, according to himself, every year did the right things towards him, all of a sudden disregard his opinion?

I am really not putting to much confidence on what he is saying because facts and other people's versions (including his mate Coughlan) contradict his words.

[ArrowsFA1]

Problem is that it's every time Stepney's own words.
From what he says his responsibility for the legality aspects of the car went back some time, well before he fell out of favour, and is something Ferrari could easily confirm or deny...IF they were asked the question.

This issue of discrediting Stepney is a rather bemusing one. After all, some are perfectly willing to accept his actions where they implicate McLaren, but not when they involve Ferrari. That in itself is understandable because the case against McLaren has been looked at by the FIA, but without any examination of what he has said it is far too convenient to dismiss him as someone who, according to Jean Todt, has "lost his head".

[SGWilko]

From what I gathered from all that has been said is that he changed his opinion over what he wanted to do in the team from one week to the other between a factory based job and a track based job.
It may be that at that moment no one was taking him seriously anymore within the team because of his demeanor.
If not why should the same people whom, according to himself, every year did the right things towards him, all of a sudden disregard his opinion?


It is entirely possible, plausible in fact, that it suits Ferrari very well to have NS seen in a public light as a man who is constantly changing his mind, and who they have now labelled him unreliable.

He served very well for many years.....

Perhaps Ferrari had been coming under increasing pressure to get back to winning, and were employing ever untoward tactics to ensure they did win. Removing the one man prepared not to toe the line and speak out about illegaility is one small step in the 'win at all costs' philosophy.......

[ioan]

It is entirely possible, plausible in fact, that it suits Ferrari very well to have NS seen in a public light as a man who is constantly changing his mind, and who they have now labelled him unreliable.

He served very well for many years.....

Perhaps Ferrari had been coming under increasing pressure to get back to winning, and were employing ever untoward tactics to ensure they did win. Removing the one man prepared not to toe the line and speak out about illegaility is one small step in the 'win at all costs' philosophy.......

To complicated and messy to be realistic.
They could have simply fired Stepney as soon as he acted against their opinion back in February. Maybe they hoped his reasoning will become clear again. anyway they were clearly wrong.

[Flat.tyres]

This is getting silly.

There are people out there that can look at the sky and swear on their dying breath that it looks any colour except blue to suit their case.

It's as obvious as the nose on my face that Ferrari were using a floor which got around the testing procedures but was illegal against the actual rules. If you disagree, then fine but this has been discussed ad-nauseum and nobody can offer a satisfactory excuse apart from the fact that the FIA passed it.

It is a fact that McLaren asked for clarification based on the Ferrari moving floor supplied by Stepney and the FIA were forced to act and confirmed that such a floor was considered illegal and subsequently changed the way cars were tested for this type of illegal device.

We also know that Stepney raised this with both Ferrari and the FIA prior to the Australian GP and nothing happened until the FIA were forced to investigate by Ferrari.

I, like many mcLaren fans and neutrals have admitted that McLaren were in the wrong. They were caught doing something that was prevalent in the sport but they were caught none the less and deserved to be punished. OK, the severity of the punishment was exceptional but we have accepted it and moved on.

Why, in the face of an argument like the moving floor, cannot a Ferrari fan come on here and say "you know what, it sure looks like they got away with something they shouldn't and if the FIA had of done their job when Stepney came to them, then the sport wouldn't have been dragged through the mud like this." In fact, roughly what Tamburello said before it emerged that Stepney had in fact done the right thing and gone to the authorities.

People can bleat on all they like about forum etiquette and the silly arguments that go round and round but most of the issue I see is the blind refusal for people to be reasonable and face facts.

If Mclaren are in the wrong, I will say it and have done where there seem to be a few red fans here that find that impossible.

If you don't agree with that then fine but I stand by my opinion and have backed it up with all availible facts and until you can bring something credible to the table to disprove it, will stick by it.

Why, in the face of an argument like the moving floor, cannot a Ferrari fan come on here and say "you know what, it sure looks like they got away with something they shouldn't and if the FIA had of done their job when Stepney came to them, then the sport wouldn't have been dragged through the mud like this." In fact, roughly what Tamburello said before it emerged that Stepney had in fact done the right thing and gone to the authorities.


Whilst it is true that I said Stepney should have gone to the FIA with his concerns, that's as far as I go.

Just because Stepney went to the FIA does not mean that the FIA were duty bound to deem the Ferrari illegal.

Where in the rule book does it say that, if approached, the FIA have to agree?

The FIA did their job. They confirmed the Ferrari conformed to the rule-book.

[Flat.tyres]

Whilst it is true that I said Stepney should have gone to the FIA with his concerns, that's as far as I go.

1. You said.


......
Had the whistle been blown in the direction of the FIA, then there would be no problem.....
Had the FIA independently investigated the Ferrari floor after recieving a whistle-blowing email, then there would be no ill-feeling from Ferrari towards Mclaren .....

I believed that you mentioned investigation, did you not?


Just because Stepney went to the FIA does not mean that the FIA were duty bound to deem the Ferrari illegal.

2. No, but they are duty bound to investigate, See #3


Where in the rule book does it say that, if approached, the FIA have to agree?

3. It doesn't but when they did investigate, after McLaren became involved, they found the device was illegal. The question still remains why they didn't before McLaren became involved. It's either illegal or not isn't it. The FIA state it's illegal so it stands to reason that when Nigel blew the whistle to the FIA, if they had of investigated, then it would still have been illegal Before Australia. Come on Tamburello. Room 101 logic.


The FIA did their job. They confirmed the Ferrari conformed to the rule-book.

For once we agree. That does seem to be the job of the FIA.

[SGWilko]

Just because Stepney went to the FIA does not mean that the FIA were duty bound to deem the Ferrari illegal.

No, because they would first have had to have properly and thoroughly inspected the device.....


Where in the rule book does it say that, if approached, the FIA have to agree?


.........which they finally did, only after a.n. other team went to the FIA to PROPOSE the SAME SOLUTION. All of a sudden it's a case of 'no, that's not allowed in this sport I am afraid.' And at that point, bird brain* Charley Farley shoots himself in the foot.....

Or are we just fabricating this? Perhaps we just pulled it out of a hat...... :rolleyes:

* Seriously, I work with a guy who knew Whiting when he worked at Bernies car dealership. They didn't trust him to do the MOT's......

[SGWilko]

1. You said.



I believed that you mentioned investigation, did you not?



2. No, but they are duty bound to investigate, See #3



3. It doesn't but when they did investigate, after McLaren became involved, they found the device was illegal. The question still remains why they didn't before McLaren became involved. It's either illegal or not isn't it. The FIA state it's illegal so it stands to reason that when Nigel blew the whistle to the FIA, if they had of investigated, then it would still have been illegal Before Australia. Come on Tamburello. Room 101 logic.



For once we agree. That does seem to be the job of the FIA.

:D Are you reading my mind, or am I reading yours!! :D

[ArrowsFA1]

Just because Stepney went to the FIA does not mean that the FIA were duty bound to deem the Ferrari illegal.
Absolutely :up:

The FIA did their job. They confirmed the Ferrari conformed to the rule-book.
I'm not clear on this point. Stepney says (http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19721.html):

Peter informed me about 10 days before the start of the Championship that he had discussed this system with Charlie Whiting, he had asked him where he had found the source of information but Peter would not tell him, Charlie Whiting said he was aware of some system but not to this extent and would look further into the subject at the Australian GP
(Again, for those who doubt Stepney's credibility, this can easily be checked by the FIA.)

Now, did Whiting "look further into the subject" at the Australian GP as a result of Stepney's approach to Peter Wright, or was Whiting forced to do so as a result of Stepney passing information to Coughlan and McLaren then seeking clarification from the FIA?

Also, while the Ferrari conformed to the rulebook as it was in Australia, why did the FIA deem it necessary to change the test in response to the issue having been raised?

[BDunnell]

Thats not the day Max sees the Chiropodist is it? :dork:

Presumably they have to take his foot out of his mouth every week.

[BDunnell]

Obviously Stepney was not one of the designers of the car and those who were qualified to take such decisions were OK with the solution they had developed.

But Stepney was proved right, in effect.

[SGWilko]

Presumably they have to take his foot out of his mouth every week.

Thats a cracker. :rotflmao:

[Flat.tyres]

:D Are you reading my mind, or am I reading yours!! :D

Neither, it's just a logical conclusion from the available evidence.

Now, if you want mind reading, I can do that.

Mmmmmmm, MMMMmnnnnnnnn, ..... ahhhhh,,,,,, It's coming through hazy, clearing, clearing. yep, I have it.

Tamburello and ioan will never accept it :laugh:

[SGWilko]

Neither, it's just a logical conclusion from the available evidence.

Now, if you want mind reading, I can do that.

Mmmmmmm, MMMMmnnnnnnnn, ..... ahhhhh,,,,,, It's coming through hazy, clearing, clearing. yep, I have it.

Tamburello and ioan will never accept it :laugh:

:laugh:
So close, but what I was actually thinking was that Ioan and Tamburello will never accept it, you got it the wrong way round........ ;)

[Flat.tyres]

Absolutely :up:

I'm not clear on this point. Stepney says (http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19721.html):

(Again, for those who doubt Stepney's credibility, this can easily be checked by the FIA.)

Now, did Whiting "look further into the subject" at the Australian GP as a result of Stepney's approach to Peter Wright, or was Whiting forced to do so as a result of Stepney passing information to Coughlan and McLaren then seeking clarification from the FIA?

Also, while the Ferrari conformed to the rulebook as it was in Australia, why did the FIA deem it necessary to change the test in response to the issue having been raised?

Chaps, we're all saying the same thing and there is no answer apart from the obvious.

I was prepared to accept that if it were 2 days befor the race, then ioan may have a point but it was 10 days before the start of the championship.

They either didn't want to investigate or they were totally incompetent and failed in their fundemental duty.

The second is unthinkable for a sports governing body and brings the whole role of the FIA as arbitrators into dispute.

The first is even more damning.

[SGWilko]

Chaps, we're all saying the same thing and there is no answer apart from the obvious.

I was prepared to accept that if it were 2 days befor the race, then ioan may have a point but it was 10 days before the start of the championship.

They either didn't want to investigate or they were totally incompetent and failed in their fundemental duty.

The second is unthinkable for a sports governing body and brings the whole role of the FIA as arbitrators into dispute.

The first is even more damning.

Apparently, the FIA is good at multitasking.....

It can be both incompetent and failed to investigate at the same time...... :laugh:

[ArrowsFA1]

So in summary:

- Stepney has concerns about the legality of Ferrari's floor and expresses those concerns within Ferrari.
- Ferrari decide to "go with the system as it is and take any advantage up to the time any team makes noises to the FIA."
- Stepney makes noises in confidence to the FIA via Peter Wright who passes the information on to Charlie Whiting.
- Charlie Whiting says he will "look further into the subject" at the Australian GP.
- Stepney provides details of the floor to Coughlan and McLaren subsequently seek clarification from the FIA.
- Scrutineers pass the Ferrari as being legal at the Australian GP.
- Martin Whitmarsh & Jean Todt seen in heated discussions after the Australian GP.
- The FIA change the floor test after the Australian GP to prevent Ferrari's floor, or anything similar, being used in future.
- In July all hell breaks loose about Coughlan having received a dossier containing confidential Ferrari information from Stepney.

[SGWilko]

So in summary:

- Stepney has concerns about the legality of Ferrari's floor and expresses those concerns within Ferrari.
- Ferrari decide to "go with the system as it is and take any advantage up to the time any team makes noises to the FIA."
- Stepney makes noises in confidence to the FIA via Peter Wright who passes the information on to Charlie Whiting.
- Charlie Whiting says he will "look further into the subject" at the Australian GP.
- Stepney provides details of the floor to Coughlan and McLaren subsequently seek clarification from the FIA.
- Scrutineers pass the Ferrari as being legal at the Australian GP.
- Martin Whitmarsh & Jean Todt seen in heated discussions after the Australian GP.
- The FIA change the floor test after the Australian GP to prevent Ferrari's floor, or anything similar, being used in future.
- In July all hell breaks loose about Coughlan having received a dossier containing confidential Ferrari information from Stepney.

Add to that of course that Ferrari are unlikely to turn around and say 'yes, we sacked NS because he knew our illegal floor was not legal, and told teacher on us' ;)

[Flat.tyres]

So in summary:

- Stepney has concerns about the legality of Ferrari's floor and expresses those concerns within Ferrari.
- Ferrari decide to "go with the system as it is and take any advantage up to the time any team makes noises to the FIA."
- Stepney makes noises in confidence to the FIA via Peter Wright who passes the information on to Charlie Whiting.
- Charlie Whiting says he will "look further into the subject" at the Australian GP.
- Stepney provides details of the floor to Coughlan and McLaren subsequently seek clarification from the FIA.
- Scrutineers pass the Ferrari as being legal at the Australian GP.
- Martin Whitmarsh & Jean Todt seen in heated discussions after the Australian GP.
- The FIA change the floor test after the Australian GP to prevent Ferrari's floor, or anything similar, being used in future.
- In July all hell breaks loose about Coughlan having received a dossier containing confidential Ferrari information from Stepney.

It really doesn't look good when it's laid out like that, does it?

I believed that you mentioned investigation, did you not?

But nowhere did I say that the FIA had to come to the conclusion that Stepney, Mclaren & yourself were looking for.

The FIA said that they would look at the floor at Melbourne. Unless you have evidence that you can back up with facts (not speculation or opinion) that the FIA looked at the floor, said it was illegal but it can stay on the car, then the only conclusion open is that, at the time of scrutineering, their investigation into the floor device was that is did not break the rules and was, for the rulebook at the time of the Australian GP, correct.

So in summary:

- Stepney has concerns about the legality of Ferrari's floor and expresses those concerns within Ferrari.
- Ferrari decide to "go with the system as it is and take any advantage up to the time any team makes noises to the FIA."
- Stepney makes noises in confidence to the FIA via Peter Wright who passes the information on to Charlie Whiting.
- Charlie Whiting says he will "look further into the subject" at the Australian GP.
- Stepney provides details of the floor to Coughlan and McLaren subsequently seek clarification from the FIA.
- Scrutineers pass the Ferrari as being legal at the Australian GP.
- Martin Whitmarsh & Jean Todt seen in heated discussions after the Australian GP.
- The FIA change the floor test after the Australian GP to prevent Ferrari's floor, or anything similar, being used in future.
- In July all hell breaks loose about Coughlan having received a dossier containing confidential Ferrari information from Stepney.


It really doesn't look good when it's laid out like that, does it?

No it doesn't.......for Stepney or Mclaren.

I refer you to this, which it appears you are in agreement with and habve raised no concern about....

- Charlie Whiting says he will "look further into the subject" at the Australian GP.
- Stepney provides details of the floor to Coughlan and McLaren subsequently seek clarification from the FIA.
- Scrutineers pass the Ferrari as being legal at the Australian GP.

So neither Stepney nor Mclaren waited for the FIA verdict.

Neither Stepney nor Mclaren showed any respect for the rules of participation as laid down by the governing body.

Instead, Stepney leaked info to a rival team which then used the info.

Which makes them guilty BEFORE the FIA had given the device the investigation they said they were going to do.

So you are quite right, it does not look good.

Only it's not the FIA it doesn't look good for, it's your favourite team.

[ioan]

But nowhere did I say that the FIA had to come to the conclusion that Stepney, Mclaren & yourself were looking for.

I think that you nailed it. ;)

If he had conviction and the correct authority did nothing, then I'm glad he has more balls than you.

Hmmm.....is that not a personal attack?

[janneppi]

Indeed it is, flat.tyres and other too, could you refraing using that sort of rhetoric, peoples feelings are just going to get hurt.

[Bagwan]

2 days is now 10 days .
That's no problem , then .

Except that they apparently had the plans long before that .

Except that Ferrari was developed with the parts , and they were legal within the rules as tested .
Whether the re-design came after or before the Oz gp is irrelevent .

Ron didn't protest because it wasn't illegal .
And , Stepney leaving it until 10 days to go looks like dropping them in it at the last minute .

[Flat.tyres]

Indeed it is, flat.tyres and other too, could you refraing using that sort of rhetoric, peoples feelings are just going to get hurt.

Really, for it to be a personal attack would mean that it was untrue.

Unless Tabburello can provide evidence to the contrary, perhaps we can have a vote on it ;)

[Flat.tyres]

Hmmm.....is that not a personal attack?

:bigcry:

[Flat.tyres]

But nowhere did I say that the FIA had to come to the conclusion that Stepney, Mclaren & yourself were looking for.

The FIA said that they would look at the floor at Melbourne. Unless you have evidence that you can back up with facts (not speculation or opinion) that the FIA looked at the floor, said it was illegal but it can stay on the car, then the only conclusion open is that, at the time of scrutineering, their investigation into the floor device was that is did not break the rules and was, for the rulebook at the time of the Australian GP, correct.

http://www.aspencountry.com/aspen/assets/product_images/product_lib/34000-34999/34513.jpg

[Flat.tyres]

No it doesn't.......for Stepney or Mclaren.

I refer you to this, which it appears you are in agreement with and habve raised no concern about....

- Charlie Whiting says he will "look further into the subject" at the Australian GP.
- Stepney provides details of the floor to Coughlan and McLaren subsequently seek clarification from the FIA.
- Scrutineers pass the Ferrari as being legal at the Australian GP.

So neither Stepney nor Mclaren waited for the FIA verdict.

Neither Stepney nor Mclaren showed any respect for the rules of participation as laid down by the governing body.

Instead, Stepney leaked info to a rival team which then used the info.

Which makes them guilty BEFORE the FIA had given the device the investigation they said they were going to do.

So you are quite right, it does not look good.

Only it's not the FIA it doesn't look good for, it's your favourite team.

http://vistasucks.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/hear_no_evil.jpg

[Flat.tyres]

I think that you nailed it. ;)

And my Coup de Gras is the FIA board meeting....

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/msh/lowres/mshn72l.jpg

[Bagwan]

There's 5 more personal attacks .

Too much Flat.tyres .

How many points is that worth ?

[markabilly]

And my Coup de Gras is the FIA board meeting....

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/msh/lowres/mshn72l.jpg
Not necessary if you got a touch of this for each:

:beer:

:beer:


:beer:

:beer:

[janneppi]

Good job guys, you made it ths far.