Fuel issue- No penalty for BMW/Williams- McLaren to appeal

[ioan]

Daniel, the severity of possible punishments should in no way be affected by what other teams have gotten for completely different matters.

:laugh: :rotflmao: :laugh:

[DonJippo]

The FIA said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63557) that the BMW & Williams cars were outside the regulations during the Brazilian GP. Any team has the right to expect the FIA to apply their regulations.

Where as the Stewards of the meeting could not prove that their petrol was outside the permitted limit.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63569

[janneppi]

All I'm suggesting is that they shouldn't expect the other drivers to be punished when their driver escaped punishment 2x during the last week end, one for a technical issue (like the fuel temps) and one of his own making (he interfered with Kimi's qualifying laps twice while he was on his outlaps).

So? :p :
Thanks I think that cleared it up, you are then agreeing with me that FIA should investigate the appeal on it's own merit without without influence from what McLaren themselves did or didn't do?

[F1boat]

Really I can't understand:
"The Woking-based team wasted little time in notifying the FIA of their intention to appeal"
"supporting our drivers' best interest." - seems weird after what Lewis said yesterday.
"McLaren's motivation in planning an appeal" - I think that behind the scenes Macca and FIA will reach an agreement - McLaren won't appeal, FIA won't further punish them in December.

[Valve Bounce]

Let's be honest here: if it was ant who interfered with either Hamiltons or Massa's qualifying lap, he would have been severely penalised. But because it was Hamilton who interfered with another driver's qualifying lap, the stewards turned a blind eye to the incident.

I suspect the stewards simply didn't have the balls to give Hamilton a 5 place or 10 place grid penalty.

What do you think?

[ioan]

The FIA said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63557) that the BMW & Williams cars were outside the regulations during the Brazilian GP. Any team has the right to expect the FIA to apply their regulations.

Yeah but when they were faced with the teams they realized that things were not as easy as they thought.
Always read the latest news, not only the ones that suit your POV:



BMW Sauber and Williams were not punished for the fuel temperature discrepancy at the Brazilian Grand Prix because the FIA stewards could not prove that their petrol was outside the permitted limit.

A statement issued by the stewards at Interlagos on Sunday night said that they could not say for certain that the fuel in the cars was below the 10-degree maximum limit allowed in the regulations.

The stewards said that there was a discrepancy between the Formula One Management temperature of 37 degrees and that provided by the FIA and team-contracted meteorologists Meteo France, which was a few degrees cooler.

Furthermore, they made it clear that they did not have certain data in their possession that would have helped prove the teams were in breach of the regulations.

In particular, their statement said they lacked: "a precise reading of the temperature of 'fuel on board the car' which shows fuel at more than 10 degrees centigrade below ambient temperature"; and "a regulation stating in clear terms that for the purposes of Article [6.5.5] the definitive ambient temperature shall be indicated on the FOM timing monitors alone."

The statement added: "In view of the matters referred to above, the stewards consider that not withstanding the presumptions referred to above there must be sufficient doubt as to both the temperature of the fuel actually 'on board the car' and also as to the true ambient temperature as to render it inappropriate to impose a penalty."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63569

Still McLaren believe that they "had no choice" but to appeal! Bunch of hypocrites.

You know that saying that goes something like:
"Give them one finger and they'll take the whole arm!"

[F1boat]

I think that the challenge for the crown is more important the the book of the rules. Stewards were right not to punish Lewis in Saturday and not to punish BMW and Williams in Sunday.

[ioan]

Let's be honest here: if it was ant who interfered with either Hamiltons or Massa's qualifying lap, he would have been severely penalised. But because it was Hamilton who interfered with another driver's qualifying lap, the stewards turned a blind eye to the incident.

I suspect the stewards simply didn't have the balls to give Hamilton a 5 place or 10 place grid penalty.

What do you think?

I think that he interfered with his direct competitor for the title so he should have had his best 3 qualifying times erased, like it happened in the past with other drivers.

[Valve Bounce]

I think that the challenge for the crown is more important the the book of the rules. Stewards were right not to punish Lewis in Saturday and not to punish BMW and Williams in Sunday.

Yeah!! I guess you are right. They didn't want to give Bernie a heart attack :eek:

[ioan]

Really I can't understand:
"The Woking-based team wasted little time in notifying the FIA of their intention to appeal"
"supporting our drivers' best interest." - seems weird after what Lewis said yesterday.
"McLaren's motivation in planning an appeal" - I think that behind the scenes Macca and FIA will reach an agreement - McLaren won't appeal, FIA won't further punish them in December.

They are the masters of saying one thing while they do the opposite:


Whitmarsh has made it clear, however, that McLaren's motivation in planning an appeal is not aimed to attacking Ferrari.

"I want to stress that our quarrel, if you can call it that, is not with Ferrari or with Kimi Raikkonen," he said.

"No, on the contrary, Kimi won the race fair and square and Ferrari did a good job to finish first and second.

"Our argument is with the stewards' decision in relation to the cars of Rosberg, Kubica and Heidfeld. Hence our decision to lodge our intention to appeal."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63593

So they have nothing against Kimi or Ferrari but they want Kimi's WDC title however.

[TL]

So they actually appealed the stewards decision:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63593

It just once again showes how incompetent the FIA has been this season..I mean if they not even can deal with this..well ya.....simple temperatures issue....How can you expect them to deal with more complicated issues when it comes to checking the legality of cars ?

[Caroline]

Yeah!! I guess you are right. They didn't want to give Bernie a heart attack :eek:

Or do anything that may affect the ever growing number of TV viewers around the world. Since these figures are at an all time high, seriously, who needs to be stressing about the small stuff.... it gets in the way of things.

McLaren have appealed, I doubt it will change anything. Time to move on.

[Valve Bounce]

It just once again showes how incompetent the FIA has been this season..I mean if they not even can deal with this..well ya.....simple temperatures issue....How can you expect them to deal with more complicated issues when it comes to checking the legality of cars ?


I think they would have difficulty checking the temperature of a dog at the Vets!! :D

[ioan]

Thanks I think that cleared it up, you are then agreeing with me that FIA should investigate the appeal on it's own merit without without influence from what McLaren themselves did or didn't do?

Yeah, and I also think that the FIA and it's stewards had no right to refuse Ferrari when they wanted to lodge a complaint against Hamilton because he blocked Kimi!

So in the light of this the FIA should decide to strap Hamilton of any points he did score or might yet score for the Brazilian GP!

Let there be JUSTICE, but for EVERYONE! :mad:

[ioan]

It just once again showes how incompetent the FIA has been this season..I mean if they not even can deal with this..well ya.....simple temperatures issue....How can you expect them to deal with more complicated issues when it comes to checking the legality of cars ?

It seems that the temperature issue is not as simple as you might believe. There are to many relative factors to be taken into account to be able to actually prove that the fuel really was cooler than permitted by the rules.

[Hawkmoon]

Shouldn't it be noted that the Stewards chose not to penalise BMW and Williams because they weren't sure that the temperature reaings were accurate enough?

No one has said that the two teams are definitively guilty of a rule breach but no penalty will be levied because we don't want to affect the championship.

If the Stewards were positive that the teams were in breach of the regs then they would have been punished, championship or no championship. Malaysia '99 being a previous example.

[ioan]

McLaren have appealed, I doubt it will change anything.

Right, nothing changed, the same hypocrite team like always.

[Caroline]

Right, nothing changed, the same hypocrite team like always.

Do you want the result to change?

[ioan]

Shouldn't it be noted that the Stewards chose not to penalise BMW and Williams because they weren't sure that the temperature reaings were accurate enough?

I posted it on the previous page, but no one cares about FACTS. :rolleyes:

[ioan]

Do you want the result to change?

Yep, change the result, throw them out of F1 as they deserve it after the mess they did this year.

[Caroline]

Yep, change the result, throw them out of F1 as they deserve it after the mess they did this year.

I was referring to the Brazilian GP :s

[Valve Bounce]

Really man!! Get a grip !! :rolleyes:

[TL]

Shouldn't it be noted that the Stewards chose not to penalise BMW and Williams because they weren't sure that the temperature reaings were accurate enough?

well like I said..shows how incompetent they are...If they can't guarantee an exact measurement..why keep that rule anyway ?

[TL]

No one has said that the two teams are definitively guilty of a rule breach but no penalty will be levied because we don't want to affect the championship.

If the Stewards were positive that the teams were in breach of the regs then they would have been punished, championship or no championship.

where was the 100% prove it the whole "spy-gate" affair ? And still McL got punished for it ! Is it because I have plans at home on how to make a bomb I have to be prosecuted for being a terrorist ? Don't think so..But guess I will never understand the FIA logic anyway !

[ioan]

I was referring to the Brazilian GP :s

I forgot my selective memory home and was referring to this whole mess of a "sport".

[leopard]

I was referring to the Brazilian GP :s

ok we understand you :)

[ioan]

where was the 100% prove it the whole "spy-gate" affair ? And still McL got punished for it !

In Alonso's laptop and email. In 780 pages of illegally obtained technical information. And so on...

Some people are good at ignoring the obvious. :roleyes:

[TL]

In Alonso's laptop and email. In 780 pages of illegally obtained technical information. And so on...

Some people are good at ignoring the obvious. :roleyes:

since when are emails prove ? they can be manipulated in so many ways my dear ioan....

Illegally obtained ? what's illegal about getting docs from someone that still was a ferrari employee at that moment ?....who not even did this on request by someone inside McL..but acted on his own account ! I keep saying Ferrari themself are to blame in all this for not protecting there files in a better way !

[Daniel]

since when are emails prove ? they can be manipulated in so many ways my dear ioan....

Illegally obtained ? what's illegal about getting docs from someone that still was a ferrari employee at that moment ?....who not even did this on request by someone inside McL..but acted on his own account ! I keep saying Ferrari themself are to blame in all this for not protecting there files in a better way !
If Ferrari were to protect their files from anyone getting them the best thing to do would be to get all their sensitive data in a room, fill the room with concrete and then drop it into the mariana trench. You can't run a team properly and have 100% security. 100% security means no one having access to it.

If the emails were manipulated then why did McLaren not appeal? Because they weren't.

If McLaren had raised the alarm when they were offered the data then they could claim innocence but they didn't and they made use of the data.

GUILTY

[ShiftingGears]

The stewards at the Brazilian GP were lenient towards all teams and drivers that broke rules. Especially considering that their leniency favoured Hamilton with the tyre and blocking issue, I don't think McLaren are in any position to appeal when the ruling doesn't favour them.

[ioan]

since when are emails prove ? they can be manipulated in so many ways my dear ioan....

Yeah but the drivers reckoned that they did write those emails!


I keep saying Ferrari themself are to blame in all this for not protecting there files in a better way !

Yes you do! Just keep doing it.

[TL]

If the emails were manipulated then why did McLaren not appeal? Because they weren't.

who says they didn't ?....Have you been able to read all the files in this case ?



If McLaren had raised the alarm when they were offered the data then they could claim innocence but they didn't and they made use of the data.

why someone has to raise the alarm for things they legaly obtained ? and again..when you say things like.."they made use of the data"..show me ?

[Caroline]

when you say things like.."they made use of the data"..show me ?

Someone might counter that with, 'show me they didn't?'

[TL]

Someone might counter that with, 'show me they didn't?'

so you admit there can't be shown prove either way right ? I thought in that case..nobody is guilty until proven differently no ? than why the conviction ?

[Daniel]

who says they didn't ?....Have you been able to read all the files in this case ?




why someone has to raise the alarm for things they legaly obtained ? and again..when you say things like.."they made use of the data"..show me ?
It's pointless wasting my time on people like you. If you read the FIA judgement you would know the answers to all your questions....

[Daniel]

so you admit there can't be shown prove either way right ? I thought in that case..nobody is guilty until proven differently no ? than why the conviction ?
If you read the FIA judgement you would see this is not the case. There is proof that they DID use the data so McLaren would have to prove that this is not the case to appeal the decision.

[TL]

It's pointless wasting my time on people like you. If you read the FIA judgement you would know the answers to all your questions....

well daniel..maybe you can copy and paste them parts out of it that answers my questions on here ? would be really kind and I thank you in advance !

[Caroline]

so you admit there can't be shown prove either way right ? I thought in that case..nobody is guilty until proven differently no ? than why the conviction ?

I didn't admit anything. I am not an investigator with the FIA, I take no professional interest in the outcome of the spying row. I tried to make the point that we (the general public) know a fraction of the 'facts'. What happened behind a multitude of closed doors will probably remain there. You challenged someone on a public forum to prove themselves. I responded in kind.

Back to the fuel eh? :)

so you admit there can't be shown prove either way right ? I thought in that case..nobody is guilty until proven differently no ? than why the conviction ?

Because there is a big difference between the legal system of a country and the rules of a club.

The FIA Formula One World Championship is a club, not a legal system.

Mclaren signed up to be a member of the club when they signed the current Concorde Agreement and entered into the F1 championship.

Therefore, like every other club where membership is voluntary, the FIA can pretty much run itself the way it likes.

If Mclaren didn't know that, then at best they are niave. If Mclaren did know this, which seems the most plausible, then they knew what they were getting themselves into.

[Daniel]

well daniel..maybe you can copy and paste them parts out of it that answers my questions on here ? would be really kind and I thank you in advance !
http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/17844641__WMSC_Decision_130907.pdf

[TL]

Because there is a big difference between the legal system of a country and the rules of a club.

The FIA Formula One World Championship is a club, not a legal system.

Mclaren signed up to be a member of the club when they signed the current Concorde Agreement and entered into the F1 championship.

Therefore, like every other club where membership is voluntary, the FIA can pretty much run itself the way it likes.

If Mclaren didn't know that, then at best they are niave. If Mclaren did know this, which seems the most plausible, then they knew what they were getting themselves into.


yes ok..But does it anywhere says.....legaly obtained information can't be used ?

[Daniel]

yes ok..But does it anywhere says.....legaly obtained information can't be used ?
It wasn't legally obtained :rolleyes: Your mother didn't tell you NOT to go to Argentina and swim in a vat full of strawberry yoghurt. Doesn't mean you should go and do it.

Back to the fuel...

In 1983, the fuel samples taken from the Brabham-BMW's of Nelson Piquet & Riccardo Patrese at the title-deciding South African GP were found to be above the specified octane-rating.

Nelson Piquet had just snatched the title from Alain Prost and the Renault team by 2 points, Prost having had a lead of 12 points with 4 races to go.

Renault, who could have appealed and would probably have won the appeal (speculation, but at the time FISA had a French president not known for his anglophile sympathies and at war with Brabhams owner...one Mr Ecclestone, no less).

Renault decided not to appeal, on the basis that they did not want to win the title in the courts.

If only Ron Dennis had that kind of integrity instead of being a duplicious hypocrite.

Mercedes-Benz must be so embarrassed.

[Daniel]

yes ok..But does it anywhere says.....legaly obtained information can't be used ?
I should also point out that industrial espionage is a criminal offense.

[TL]

It wasn't legally obtained :rolleyes: Your mother didn't tell you NOT to go to Argentina and swim in a vat full of strawberry yoghurt. Doesn't mean you should go and do it.

again..what's ilegall when someone within a team..gives out info...

if Mcl..would have hired someone to infiltrate within Ferrari and spy for them ok..I would agree....But that's not the case...

also...when an employee from one team moves to another ( fe a driver or engineer) and they reveal info they gathered the previous season from the old team..they can be seen as spies ?

[Daniel]

again..what's ilegall when someone within a team..gives out info...

if Mcl..would have hired someone to infiltrate within Ferrari and spy for them ok..I would agree....But that's not the case...

also...when an employee from one team moves to another ( fe a driver or engineer) and they reveal info they gathered the previous season from the old team..they can be seen as spies ?
You're speculating. The evidence is there in that PDF. Lets discuss evidence and not speculate as to whether the coriolis effect (or some other such nonsensical argument) has something to do with it.

It should also be pointed out that when a designer moves team they're usually put on gardening leave so anything they know is probably months old and therefore useless.

[Hondo]

Getting back to the "cool fuel" issue, I think Max ought to fine Williams and BMW-Sauber $1.00 each. In addition, as Ralf has worked for both Williams and BMW, there is the possibility he could have been the genius behind the cooling scheme. Ralf shall therefore be banned from F1 for the 2008 season.

To avoid future problems with ridiculous technical regulations that seem to defy proper testing, I will accept $22 million from Max and appoint a twenty member panel of my choosing from this forum to review, delete, add, or revise the technical regulations for the 2008 season. We shall also publish a schedule of penalties that shall be applied upon proof of violation of a regulation. The FIA, teams, and driver's shall have no input or vote on the final specifications.

[TL]

Back to the fuel...

In 1983, the fuel samples taken from the Brabham-BMW's of Nelson Piquet & Riccardo Patrese at the title-deciding South African GP were found to be above the specified octane-rating.

Nelson Piquet had just snatched the title from Alain Prost and the Renault team by 2 points, Prost having had a lead of 12 points with 4 races to go.

Renault, who could have appealed and would probably have won the appeal (speculation, but at the time FISA had a French president not known for his anglophile sympathies and at war with Brabhams owner...one Mr Ecclestone, no less).

Renault decided not to appeal, on the basis that they did not want to win the title in the courts.

If only Ron Dennis had that kind of integrity instead of being a duplicious hypocrite.

Mercedes-Benz must be so embarrassed.

If you know things haven't been legal in any way or the other..you should make an appeal..if it's the first or the last GP..doesn't matter...rules are rules..for everyone...If you don't make an appeal..U basicaly agree for teams to cheat...and what's goin to happen than ?

[Daniel]

If you know things haven't been legal in any way or the other..you should make an appeal..if it's the first or the last GP..doesn't matter...rules are rules..for everyone...If you don't make an appeal..U basicaly agree for teams to cheat...and what's goin to happen than ?
It's called sportsmanship.

[Valve Bounce]

where was the 100% prove it the whole "spy-gate" affair ? And still McL got punished for it ! Is it because I have plans at home on how to make a bomb I have to be prosecuted for being a terrorist ? Don't think so..But guess I will never understand the FIA logic anyway !

Actually, if you have plans for a bomb at home, you in are in deep shyte already.

[TL]

It's called sportsmanship.

oooooooh ok...I C...seems we have a different view on the meaning of sportsmanship than !

[Ranger]

Back to the fuel...

In 1983, the fuel samples taken from the Brabham-BMW's of Nelson Piquet & Riccardo Patrese at the title-deciding South African GP were found to be above the specified octane-rating.

Nelson Piquet had just snatched the title from Alain Prost and the Renault team by 2 points, Prost having had a lead of 12 points with 4 races to go.

Renault, who could have appealed and would probably have won the appeal (speculation, but at the time FISA had a French president not known for his anglophile sympathies and at war with Brabhams owner...one Mr Ecclestone, no less).

Renault decided not to appeal, on the basis that they did not want to win the title in the courts.

Interesting... Never heard about that before. :up:

Though to balance this:

In the 1986 World Rally Championship, Lancia's Markku Alen had won the driver's title after the Peugeot 206's were controversially DQ'd from the San Remo rally after the Italian stewards ruled that the Peugeot's underbody fins were side skirts, which were banned, despite no such scrutineering problems on the same body panel for the other events before the rally. This brought into question the fact that Lancia was an Italian team that was behind in the championship on Italian home soil. Peugeot's initial appeal failed, and they were DQ'd before the rally finished, meaning they could score no points regardless.

However, apon appeal to FISA some weeks after the seasons' end and Alen was already crowned champion, Peugeot won. No points were awarded for anyone for the San Remo rally, and Peugeot's Juha Kankkunen was crowned champion after the title had been decided in court. Which I suppose was also questionable as FISA's president was also pretty nationalistic.

But there's one title (be it not in F1) that hasn't gone down as shameful (I don't think?) due to its outcome being decided in court.

[BDunnell]

tamburello's example is extremely pertinent. There are limits to how far these things ought to be taken. As I said earlier, it is largely McLaren's fault that Hamilton wasn't in the position to win the title without requiring 'help' like this, because of the car's technical problems. For them to appeal in this case is an act of some desperation.

Malllen — the Peugeots that were disqualified from the San Remo rally in 1986 were 205s, not 206s. That was an absurd situation with an utterly unfair outcome, and it ended a horrible year for world rallying which was far worse than F1's year has been in 2007, because people died. Unless Italy reintroduces the death penalty specifically for Nigel Stepney, that's not going to be the case as a result of all that's gone on recently in F1.

[Ranger]

Malllen — the Peugeots that were disqualified from the San Remo rally in 1986 were 205s, not 206s.
Ah bugger it, that's what I meant. But still, Peugeot weren't shamed for it as far as I can tell (from the trusty internet) :D .

[ioan]

tamburello's example is extremely pertinent. There are limits to how far these things ought to be taken. As I said earlier, it is largely McLaren's fault that Hamilton wasn't in the position to win the title without requiring 'help' like this, because of the car's technical problems. For them to appeal in this case is an act of some desperation.

Actually it wasn't a team related technical problem, more like driver related.

However their 3 stops strategy didn't help things a bit.

[BDunnell]

Actually it wasn't a team related technical problem, more like driver related.

However their 3 stops strategy didn't help things a bit.

Did he cause the problem that forced him to slow and drop to the back of the field, then?

[Daniel]

Did he cause the problem that forced him to slow and drop to the back of the field, then?
As posted before he admitted to pressing a button that caused that issue ;)

[Valve Bounce]

the Peugeots that were disqualified from the San Remo rally in 1986 were 205s, not 206s. That was an absurd situation with an utterly unfair outcome, and it ended a horrible year for world rallying which was far worse than F1's year has been in 2007, because people died.




I seem to remember some Minis being D/Q's from the Monte because they had the wrong coloured headlight bulbs or something, and some French car won as a result.

[Bagwan]

Why are we giving suggestions of how it might go on appeal when they have stated that they do not have proper evidence to find them in breach of the regulation ?
You can't appeal a decision that wasn't made .

I mean , it's interesting and all , but kind of irrelevent when you figure they couldn't show them to be breaking the rule .

[ioan]

Why are we giving suggestions of how it might go on appeal when they have stated that they do not have proper evidence to find them in breach of the regulation ?

In McLaren world everything is possible, since they managed to escape a 2 years ban they believe to have more rights than anyone else.

Rony boy those 100.000.000 dollars were a fine not a buy out of the FIA!

[BDunnell]

As posted before he admitted to pressing a button that caused that issue ;)

And now a detailed alternative explanation has been provided.

[GP-M3]

Well said. These are the frustrations of this whole thing. It's hard to believe Mac is so stupid after all the breaks they got this year... and the BS that they just want to clear up the rules... what disengenuous arses... This is only for Lewis of course, and FA would not benefit. Lewis does have some class, but if he really wanted to show it, he would come out and directly say, I will not accept the drivers championship on appeal this year.



Let's just say that this season EVERYONE got their share of help from the FIA, some more ans some less.

Back to the fuel debate.

McLaren was found guilty of cheating and excluded from the championship but drivers were allowed to keep their points and continue to fight for the WDC.

Hamilton was put back on track by a crane when rules clearly stated that cranes can only be used to remove stricken cars that abandoned.

SC rules were relaxed after the same drivers shenanigans in poor weather conditions led to an accident.

More sets of wet tires were used in FP1 in Brazil, team got fined and driver got away clean.

Disrupted KR's qualifying twice yet the stewards said to Ferrari there is no use to question it! (keep in mind that others lost places on the grid for similar actions)

So what are McLaren and RD expecting from the FIA, again, in this fuel related problem.

Fine the teams?

Disqualify the BMW and Williams cars and take away all their points or only the constructor points?

They are clearly not in a position to ask for drivers to be disqualified, not without questioning their own drivers situation.

[spiritone]

Just one question. If this was mclarens fuel does anyone here think that mclaren would not be disqualified.

[DonJippo]

Just one question. If this was mclarens fuel does anyone here think that mclaren would not be disqualified.

In same circumstances why would they act differently with McLaren?

[F1boat]

Well, after Mclaren pressed with appeal, I hope that on December 6th Max will ban them from next year.

[ClarkFan]

As posted before he admitted to pressing a button that caused that issue ;)

Was he trying to push the button that was supposed to shoot the missle at Fernando?

:p

ClarkFan

[Hawkmoon]

McLaren are claiming that they don't have anything against Raikkonen and Ferrari and admit they were beaten on the track. They claim that they don't have anything against BMW and Williams and aren't suggesting that the teams tried to cheat. They claim that the issue is "too important" not to appeal.

What a load of rubbish! There's only one reason for McLaren to appeal and that's to win the championship. It's their last and only hope to salvage something from this season. Why can't they just admit it? Everyone knows it. Why lie?

Question? Why aren't Red Bull, Toyota and Super Aguri appealing? They will gain points if the BMWs and Williams cars are DQ'd. It's because they have little to gain even with the points. They don't, however, feel that the issue is "too important" and needs clarification.

McLaren do have something to gain but for some reason don't want to admit it.

[cjent]

Poor sportsmanship, I say.

[GP-M3]

What a load of rubbish! There's only one reason for McLaren to appeal and that's to win the championship. It's their last and only hope to salvage something from this season. Why can't they just admit it? Everyone knows it. Why lie?

I was mostly neutral to McLaren prior to this year, but I have no respect for them left, and especially Ron Dennis. This is really the worst way to end the season from their prospective. (Especially after LH and FA were let of with no loss of points). I wish some of the shakers of the F1 world would come out and speak against this, and ask them to recall the request.

Lewis himself ought to speak out and say he will not now accept the WDC title from Kimi in this manner. (Not simply as he's already said he'd prefer to win it on track)

[AndyRAC]

tamburello's example is extremely pertinent. There are limits to how far these things ought to be taken. As I said earlier, it is largely McLaren's fault that Hamilton wasn't in the position to win the title without requiring 'help' like this, because of the car's technical problems. For them to appeal in this case is an act of some desperation.

Malllen — the Peugeots that were disqualified from the San Remo rally in 1986 were 205s, not 206s. That was an absurd situation with an utterly unfair outcome, and it ended a horrible year for world rallying which was far worse than F1's year has been in 2007, because people died. Unless Italy reintroduces the death penalty specifically for Nigel Stepney, that's not going to be the case as a result of all that's gone on recently in F1.

During the '86 San Remo on the final day one of the Lancias stopped in the stage to allow Alen to catch and pass, to make up the time. A really unsavoury end to a shameful episode, ....well it was in Italy.
Anyway I can't see the problem with McLaren appealing, the teams that finished ahead of one of their cars were found to have fuel irregularities, so is that okay? I don't think so, even though the performance improvement is negligible. What if it had happened early on in the season, I'm sure they might have been DSQ'D.
Back to Stepney and Ferrari, don't remember them being punished, after all their failure to control a member of their staff, or don't penalties affect Ferrari?

[airshifter]

Why are we giving suggestions of how it might go on appeal when they have stated that they do not have proper evidence to find them in breach of the regulation ?
You can't appeal a decision that wasn't made .

I mean , it's interesting and all , but kind of irrelevent when you figure they couldn't show them to be breaking the rule .

It's rather boring dealing with facts. Please edit your post to support some type of conspiracy theory. :laugh:

So far most of this thread is based on bias being shown for or against one team, yet ignoring the above stated fact.

[Bagwan]

It's rather boring dealing with facts. Please edit your post to support some type of conspiracy theory. :laugh:

So far most of this thread is based on bias being shown for or against one team, yet ignoring the above stated fact.

Damn , you're right .

OK , I'll go with it being Dave Richards behind all this .

[tinchote]

Well, after Mclaren pressed with appeal, I hope that on December 6th Max will ban them from next year.

Whatever little respect I had left for RD, is all gone now :down: Suppose they win the WDC this way: what would their sponsors think? Can they put LH in the #1 car in an ad next year?



And as Hawkmoon said, why aren't the other teams appealling?

[wmcot]

McLaren are claiming that they don't have anything against Raikkonen and Ferrari and admit they were beaten on the track. They claim that they don't have anything against BMW and Williams and aren't suggesting that the teams tried to cheat. They claim that the issue is "too important" not to appeal.

What a load of rubbish! There's only one reason for McLaren to appeal and that's to win the championship. It's their last and only hope to salvage something from this season. Why can't they just admit it? Everyone knows it. Why lie?

Question? Why aren't Red Bull, Toyota and Super Aguri appealing? They will gain points if the BMWs and Williams cars are DQ'd. It's because they have little to gain even with the points. They don't, however, feel that the issue is "too important" and needs clarification.

McLaren do have something to gain but for some reason don't want to admit it.

Ron wants another trophy for his collection and his little plan of hiring a 2 time WDC and a wonderchild rookie didn't work, so he'll try the courts!

Seriously! The guy has problems! He makes me wish Paul Stoddart was back! ;)

Out of curiosity, I wonder how the other teams' fuel temperatures measured? Were they all on the low side, but just not lower than 10C? It would be interesting to find out more details. (Interesting, but not important, that is...)

[janneppi]

If the appeal results in consistent method to check fuel temps for next season without any possibility of different interpretations, then I see it as a good thing.

[AndyRAC]

If the appeal results in consistent method to check fuel temps for next season without any possibility of different interpretations, then I see it as a good thing.

Totally agree, but that's only the start, as posted elsewere, a new set of penalties needs to be drawn up and/or permament stewards at each race. Instead of the current system of deciding on a whim what the penalty might be.

[ArrowsFA1]

McLaren are claiming that they don't have anything against Raikkonen and Ferrari and admit they were beaten on the track. They claim that they don't have anything against BMW and Williams and aren't suggesting that the teams tried to cheat. They claim that the issue is "too important" not to appeal.

What a load of rubbish! There's only one reason for McLaren to appeal and that's to win the championship. It's their last and only hope to salvage something from this season. Why can't they just admit it? Everyone knows it. Why lie?
The response to that is if there has been a breach of the regulations then why should it be ignored?

Of course it would be an unsatisfactory end to the season if the championship were decided on this appeal, and no-one wants to see Kimi lose the title or Hamilton win it in this way, but it's not McLaren's fault that Williams & BMW appear to have gained an advantage by breaking a rule. Whether they had done so at the first or last race of the season should make no difference.

[ioan]

The response to that is if there has been a breach of the regulations then why should it be ignored?

Because their team or driver breached the regulations 2x the same week end, yet only one of the issues was addressed and it didn't result in a penalty against the said driver.

What do you think, why did the stewards say that they don't accept any complaint against lewis qualifying blocking against Kimi?!

[ioan]

If the appeal results in consistent method to check fuel temps for next season without any possibility of different interpretations, then I see it as a good thing.

They could ask for a clarification of the rules instead of an appeal! ;)
There's a subtle difference there! :p :

[Hawkmoon]

The response to that is if there has been a breach of the regulations then why should it be ignored?

Of course it would be an unsatisfactory end to the season if the championship were decided on this appeal, and no-one wants to see Kimi lose the title or Hamilton win it in this way, but it's not McLaren's fault that Williams & BMW appear to have gained an advantage by breaking a rule. Whether they had done so at the first or last race of the season should make no difference.

It was investigated. For many hours after the event. After the stewards looked at it they decided that there wasn't enough reason to punish the teams.

McLaren are making out like BMW and Williams were found guilty and let off (a la the first Stepney-gate ruling). They were never found guilty, only investigated.

[Valve Bounce]

Again, I am moved to repeat that the penalties to be meted out should be consistant. In this case, any penalty should only affect the teams if/which are fuound guilty of the infraction and not other teams. A fair penalty would be (if the infraction is found to be true) to penalise the team(s) with grid positions in their next race as well as a fine.

In this case, it does appear that the stewards are not confident that their measurements have indicated a sustainable infraction as there appears to be some confusion to the temperatures taken and the benchmarks to compare them against.

A good lawyer would shoot this case down in flames.

[ioan]

A good lawyer would shoot this case down in flames.

That's what Max will do.
And than J.Stewart will come out and say it's Max's personal vendetta against Ron! :p :

[ArrowsFA1]

What do you think, why did the stewards say that they don't accept any complaint against lewis qualifying blocking against Kimi?!
They didn't "accept any complaint" simply because there wasn't one! No complaint or protest was made.

Because their team or driver breached the regulations 2x the same week end, yet only one of the issues was addressed and it didn't result in a penalty against the said driver.
Are you saying that because in your opinion Hamilton breached a regulation, and McLaren used two sets of wets and were penalised, a possible breach of the regulations by Williams and BMW should be ignored? How are those three issues related and why should one be dependent on the outcome of another?

The FIA do not (or should not!!) look at things, as you appear to be doing, in terms of penalising a particular team at every opportunity.

[BDunnell]

Because their team or driver breached the regulations 2x the same week end, yet only one of the issues was addressed and it didn't result in a penalty against the said driver.

This raises an interesting point. While we're all in favour of consistent penalties (at least, I think we are — some would surely object to the consistency applying to 'their team', which is of course never in the wrong), it is in reality impossible to compare one incident with another in terms of meting out punishments, because no-one could ever come up with a scale of equivalency for different misdemeanours. Who could come up with a means of grading, for instance, using more than the permitted number of sets of one type of tyre against overtaking on the formation lap? Which is more serious? How would you deal with the passage of information from one team to another via employees? This is almost impossible to police, and happens in all sorts of different ways. How would you set a concrete system of punishments? And we shouldn't even get started on racing incidents.

It would be impossible to satisfy everyone in any case, because some 'fans' will always think that the team they most dislike, whichever team that may be, does everything out of a desire to cheat when in reality they don't know what the motivation was.

[Dzeidzei]

They didn't "accept any complaint" simply because there wasn't one! No complaint or protest was made.

Are you saying that because in your opinion Hamilton breached a regulation, and McLaren used two sets of wets and were penalised, a possible breach of the regulations by Williams and BMW should be ignored? How are those three issues related and why should one be dependent on the outcome of another?

The FIA do not (or should not!!) look at things, as you appear to be doing, in terms of penalising a particular team at every opportunity.

Well, maybe FIA should penalise BMW and Williams for breaching a regulation. However, taking points from the drivers is another thing. According to the FIA line the drivers cannot be penalised (Lewis and FA kept their points remember), Lewis wasnt fined for using 2 sets of wets etc.

Penalise the teams, let the drivers race.

[BDunnell]

The FIA do not (or should not!!) look at things, as you appear to be doing, in terms of penalising a particular team at every opportunity.

:up:

Of course, we know that the Supreme Overlord of the Central Committee of Ferrari High Command would make the ideal permanent steward for F1, if and when he steps down.

[ioan]

They didn't "accept any complaint" simply because there wasn't one! No complaint or protest was made.

Maybe you could explain how you lodge a complaint if the authorities do not want to accept it?! :s

[ioan]

Well, maybe FIA should penalise BMW and Williams for breaching a regulation. However, taking points from the drivers is another thing. According to the FIA line the drivers cannot be penalised (Lewis and FA kept their points remember), Lewis wasnt fined for using 2 sets of wets etc.

Penalise the teams, let the drivers race.

I'm not sure that Hamilton fans agree with you on that one.

[BDunnell]

I'm not sure that Hamilton fans agree with you on that one.

Why would only 'Hamilton fans' disagree with such a point?

[ArrowsFA1]

Maybe you could explain how you lodge a complaint if the authorities do not want to accept it?! :s
What? :crazy:

In the case you were talking about either 1) Ferrari could have protested or 2) the stewards could have looked at the incident. Either method will do, or 2 could follow 1. Neither happened.

[OTA]

One question? How did they know that the fuel temperature was not right? do they regulary take temperatures of fuel in every car. Do they do it at the beginning or at the end, or in middle stints? or do they have real time data of it? I honestly don't know as I never had a clue that fuel temperatures were regulated.

Cheers
David

[Daniel]

One question? How did they know that the fuel temperature was not right? do they regulary take temperatures of fuel in every car. Do they do it at the beginning or at the end, or in middle stints? or do they have real time data of it? I honestly don't know as I never had a clue that fuel temperatures were regulated.

Cheers
David
I would assume from the fuel rig before the cars are refuelled?

I think the best that could come from this is that the rule is abolished. If the teams can all cool the fuel down to whatever temperature they want then the fuel will probably all end up at the same temperature anyway.....

[OTA]

Is this done every time they refuel? Who came forward with the story, marshalls or Mac?

Cheers
David

[Daniel]

Is this done every time they refuel? Who came forward with the story, marshalls or Mac?

Cheers
David
Well if you're found to have an underweight car or infringing upon the rules in a technical manner it's usually the stewards who discuss it.

[tinchote]

Haug claims (http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/071023173322.shtml) that they are appealing not to win the title but to obtain a clarification of the rules and "in the best interest of all teams". Why do they need to lie like that? :mad:

[Daniel]

Haug claims (http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/071023173322.shtml) that they are appealing not to win the title but to obtain a clarification of the rules and "in the best interest of all teams". Why do they need to lie like that? :mad:
That's the funniest thing since a history book told me the English had the two Boer wars to protect miners rights rather than being the gold and diamond grab that it was :laugh:

[wmcot]

Haug claims (http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/071023173322.shtml) that they are appealing not to win the title but to obtain a clarification of the rules and "in the best interest of all teams". Why do they need to lie like that? :mad:

Because, as Ron constantly reminds us, McLaren has "integrity!" ;)

Seriously, they should clarify the rule and look at how other teams compared that day (were they also low, but within 10C?, etc.) Perhaps there should be a way to regulate the temp of the fuels rigs and ALL fuel will be within a certain set specification. Then we won't have to go through this again!

As far as a penalty for BMW or Williams, I think a fine would be adequate. Taking away constructors' points would be drastic, and taking away drivers' points would be a joke!

If any team has integrity on pitlane, it is Williams! (And this is from a Ferrari fan!) I can't believe Ron is suggesting his "good friend" Frank's team would cheat or at least be incapable of regulating fuel temps!

[GP-M3]

As far as a penalty for BMW or Williams, I think a fine would be adequate. Taking away constructors' points would be drastic, and taking away drivers' points would be a joke!

Agreed. Though I keep thinking they weren't actually found guilty of anything. They ended up saying there was not solid evidence, and there was contradictory evidence so with that, we will not give a penalty.

Team "Integrity" is saying, they were found guilty but not punished. From what I've read, therre was insufficient evidence, end of story. I don't see why FIA doesn not just say, "there is nothing to punish" end of story.

[wmcot]

From what I've read, therre was insufficient evidence, end of story. I don't see why FIA doesn not just say, "there is nothing to punish" end of story.

I expect that they will do exactly that. Of course, we'll have a bunch of posts about how that's not fair...

[Hawkmoon]

What have BMW and Williams had to say on the matter? All I've read is why McLaren feel that it's "too important" for them to not appeal. BMW and Williams have effectively been accused of or caught, depending on your point of view, cheating yet seem to be rather silent on the issue.

[wmcot]

What have BMW and Williams had to say on the matter? All I've read is why McLaren feel that it's "too important" for them to not appeal. BMW and Williams have effectively been accused of or caught, depending on your point of view, cheating yet seem to be rather silent on the issue.

Haven't heard a thing. I guess they're not expecting too much to come from this. Perhaps Frank is trying to talk some sense into his "friend" Ron?

[ArrowsFA1]

Haug claims (http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/071023173322.shtml) that they are appealing not to win the title but to obtain a clarification of the rules and "in the best interest of all teams". Why do they need to lie like that? :mad:
Where's the lie?

I come back to the point that if this had happened in the middle of the season it would be seen as perfectly normal - a question over the legality of cars, FIA say they were outside the regulations, stewards say issue is unclear, team that has lost out if cars were illegal appeal the decision.

If we weren't talking about McLaren and the final race of the year then most would see the appeal as being fully justified.

McLaren aren't asking for anything but for the FIA to examine the stewards decision. Unlike some there they're not assuming that Hamilton will be awarded points as a result of the appeal.

[DonJippo]

I come back to the point that if this had happened in the middle of the season it would be seen as perfectly normal - a question over the legality of cars, FIA say they were outside the regulations, stewards say issue is unclear, team that has lost out if cars were illegal appeal the decision.

One could also ask would McLaren appeal if it was middle of the season?

[ArrowsFA1]

One could also ask would McLaren appeal if it was middle of the season?
Yes, the nature of Haug's comments suggest that they would have appealed then as well because the issue is not the championship, but a possible breach of the rules.

[Ranger]

Yes, the nature of Haug's comments suggest that they would have appealed then as well because the issue is not the championship, but a possible breach of the rules.

But the championship is very much the issue. If Hamilton had won the race and the title, McLaren wouldn't be giving two ****s about this.

[ArrowsFA1]

If Hamilton had won the race and the title, McLaren wouldn't be giving two ****s about this.
Perhaps, but any team who may have potentially lost out due to another team(s) breaking a rule is fully entitled to appeal a decision of the FIA stewards. That applies at any point during the season.

Why McLaren are being criticised for doing what any team would do in their circumstances is bemusing :crazy: But then it is McLaren and Ron Dennis we're talking about :dozey:

[ioan]

Why McLaren are being criticised for doing what any team would do in their circumstances is bemusing :crazy: But then it is McLaren and Ron Dennis we're talking about :dozey:

Because it's in contrast with their earlier stance?!
I say it's sufficient.

[ArrowsFA1]

Because it's in contrast with their earlier stance?!
I say it's sufficient.
What earlier stance :confused:

[BDunnell]

Where's the lie?

I come back to the point that if this had happened in the middle of the season it would be seen as perfectly normal - a question over the legality of cars, FIA say they were outside the regulations, stewards say issue is unclear, team that has lost out if cars were illegal appeal the decision.

If we weren't talking about McLaren and the final race of the year then most would see the appeal as being fully justified.

McLaren aren't asking for anything but for the FIA to examine the stewards decision. Unlike some there they're not assuming that Hamilton will be awarded points as a result of the appeal.

I agree with all of that as far as the bare facts are concerned, but I still feel that McLaren's actions at this point in time are extremely ill-judged. They smack of sour grapes, and I really think they would be well advised to let it lie.

[ArrowsFA1]

I really think they would be well advised to let it lie.
That would probably be best. In fact apart from Kimi's title, and Hamilton's rookie season I'd be happy to put the whole to the 2007 season to bed.

[wmcot]

Unlike some there they're not assuming that Hamilton will be awarded points as a result of the appeal.


Probably not assuming, but maybe hoping.

[TMorel]

Surely all it would take then is for the FIA to issue a press release stating that the rules for 2008 will be tightened up. That way McLaren get what they want (a definitive rule) and we get what we want (Kimi to stay champion as McLaren can then drop this stupid appeal)

[Juppe]

What disturbs me deeply with this thread is that there are only a couple of posts that actually ponder reasons why the cars were not punished. And there was and are very good reasons as why they should not be punished.

And that establishes a very good reason for McLaren to file a complaint, because at best the rule in question is too vague to be followed and as it is, it should be clarified.

The rule states that fuel on board has to be no more than 10 degrees cooler than the ambient temperature.

However, the temperature of the fuel on board is not measured, but the temperature entering the car. I am going to assume that there is still some fuel left in the tank and the tank itself must be quite hot. Therefore the fuel immediately heats up at least a little bit when it finds an equilibrium with the tank and the fuel left in the tank. Therefore, the fuel temperature will most likely to be within regulations on board even though it may be a couple of degrees too cold in the fuel rig.

Secondly, it is not estasblished what is the official and correct ambient temperature. The teams are using data given by a weather forecast company while there is a temperature meter somewhere laying in the sun and giving very different readings. And either of them could be used as a reference temperature, because the official temperature is not established.

Therefore, we have no way of telling the fuel temperature on board and we do not know what is the temperature it should be compared to.

Thus, the marshalls made the only possible decision and punished no-one.

So case closed, the verdict will not change, but hopefully FIA will elaborate, what they mean by that rule.

Move on, there is nothing to see here and Kimi will keep his title. Good night.

[tinchote]

What disturbs me deeply with this thread is that there are only a couple of posts that actually ponder reasons why the cars were not punished. And there was and are very good reasons as why they should not be punished.

And that establishes a very good reason for McLaren to file a complaint, because at best the rule in question is too vague to be followed and as it is, it should be clarified.

The rule states that fuel on board has to be no more than 10 degrees cooler than the ambient temperature.

However, the temperature of the fuel on board is not measured, but the temperature entering the car. I am going to assume that there is still some fuel left in the tank and the tank itself must be quite hot. Therefore the fuel immediately heats up at least a little bit when it finds an equilibrium with the tank and the fuel left in the tank. Therefore, the fuel temperature will most likely to be within regulations on board even though it may be a couple of degrees too cold in the fuel rig.

Secondly, it is not estasblished what is the official and correct ambient temperature. The teams are using data given by a weather forecast company while there is a temperature meter somewhere laying in the sun and giving very different readings. And either of them could be used as a reference temperature, because the official temperature is not established.

Therefore, we have no way of telling the fuel temperature on board and we do not know what is the temperature it should be compared to.

Thus, the marshalls made the only possible decision and punished no-one.

So case closed, the verdict will not change, but hopefully FIA will elaborate, what they mean by that rule.

Move on, there is nothing to see here and Kimi will keep his title. Good night.

Very good points, with the exception that if McLaren wanted a clarification, they could have asked for a clarification, which by the way is far cheaper than al appeal ;)

[Valve Bounce]

The rule states that fuel on board has to be no more than 10 degrees cooler than the ambient temperature.

However, the temperature of the fuel on board is not measured, but the temperature entering the car. I am going to assume that there is still some fuel left in the tank and the tank itself must be quite hot. Therefore the fuel immediately heats up at least a little bit when it finds an equilibrium with the tank and the fuel left in the tank. Therefore, the fuel temperature will most likely to be within regulations on board even though it may be a couple of degrees too cold in the fuel rig.

Secondly, it is not estasblished what is the official and correct ambient temperature. The teams are using data given by a weather forecast company while there is a temperature meter somewhere laying in the sun and giving very different readings. And either of them could be used as a reference temperature, because the official temperature is not established.

Therefore, we have no way of telling the fuel temperature on board and we do not know what is the temperature it should be compared to.

Thus, the marshalls made the only possible decision and punished no-one.



Funny that you have brought this up, because I was thinking about the temperature measurements all morning.

First of all, I'd like to know whether the thermometers were calibrated by a recognised scientific standards laboratory that morning before the measurements were taken.
Then there is the very good point that Juppe brought up about where the temperature of the fuel is taken. So I would ask how many readings were taken from the fuel from within the fuel tanks and whether these readings were consistant!
I used to run Soils Testing Laboratories for many years, here in Australia and abroad, and I can verify that even temperatures taken from within an enclosed oven ( used for moisture content determinations) can vary significantly. We had our ovens checked by the standards people (can't remember their name now) and we had to discard some of the ovens that showed variations in excess of around 1.5 degrees C.
Now taking the temperature of the fuel in motion before entry into the fuel tanks would show significant differences from the fuel within the tank. As Juppe mentions, there is some residual fuel in the tank which when mixed with the ingoing fuel could significantly affect the temperature of the total fuel load once the tank is filled. Then, of course, depending from where inside the tank the temperatures are taken, you would get significant variation in the fuel temperatures. I don't remembre seeing anyone from FIA or the stewards sticking a thermometer inside the fuel tanks and taking temperatures at various points within the fuel tanks. This procedure, to provide accurate readings wouldn't take much longer than around ten minutes, so the time factor wouldn't affect the car in the pits that much would it? :rolleyes: I mean he would only lose a couple of places but in a long race over 200 km, this would hardly matter.

And this is even before we go into the subject of ambient temperatures specified by the FOM, which I am willing to bet, nobody bothered to get running temperature checks each quarter of a minute with standard calibrated thermometers for these FOM readings displayed.

A good lawyer with the help of a good physicist or chemist or engineer would shoot down the charges against BMW and Williams in a flash.

[harvick#1]

it won't matter, even if the FIA punishes Williams and BMW, they can't take away driver points.

Mclaren stole Ferrari documents but the drivers weren't given any punishment, but the constructor was banished for 2 years and a 100 million dollar fine.

Kimi won the WDC fair and square, it was Hamiltons own fault, when Alonso got by, he didn't have to push to get back in front cause he was still champion even if the Ferraris and Alonso were ahead of him.

[jas123f1]

it won't matter, even if the FIA punishes Williams and BMW, they can't take away driver points.

Mclaren stole Ferrari documents but the drivers weren't given any punishment, but the constructor was banished for 2 years and a 100 million dollar fine.

Kimi won the WDC fair and square, it was Hamiltons own fault, when Alonso got by, he didn't have to push to get back in front cause he was still champion even if the Ferraris and Alonso were ahead of him.

Absolutely right, Hamilton misses the title because of his own mistakes both in China and in Brazil – it’s the only reason. I think the pressure from English media was too much for him. TV and all the newspapers were giving a picture of their new racing star like he all ready was a world champion. They was pushing him too much and that was creating the atmosphere around him of a "wonder kid" or "golden boy" which made it very difficult for him (after all he was a rookie with his first season in F1 and didn’t have the experience necessary to a champion). :)

[ArrowsFA1]

The FIA's International Court of Appeal will hear McLaren's case against the decision of the Brazilian Grand Prix stewards on Thursday, November 15.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63664

According to Max:

"For us the world championship is over, the result is what it is. A team presented an appeal; at the moment, this doesn't change anything - it's up to them to prove they are right."

You could argue whether McLaren had a right to appeal. They could have protested the result, but they didn't. Apparently they didn't measure the temperature of the fuel. But even if the cars classified ahead of Hamilton would be excluded, would this change his position? The Court of Appeal will have to rule on that."

[ioan]

Very good points, with the exception that if McLaren wanted a clarification, they could have asked for a clarification, which by the way is far cheaper than al appeal ;)

But they don't want a clarification they want the others to be punished.
And they have to reasons:

1. Trying to win the WDC for Hamilton, but it's very unlikely
2. Trying to get more WCC points to offset some more millions from their $ 100.000.000 fine. As it stands they virtually got less points than Ferrari this season and they have to pay in excess of $ 50.000.000 fine. If however they manage to get Williams and BMW disqualified than they will get more points than earlier and they will also have most constructor points in which case there is more TV revenue virtually allocated to them and thus they will have to pay a smaller fine in the end.

So they are not appealing because they want a rule clarification, that's just a smoke screen as they have two way better reasons for an appeal than a mere rule clarification.
Not to mention that they did often seek for clarifications in the past without appealing (Renault's MDS, Ferrari floor beeing a few examples from the last 2 seasons).

[Juppe]

Very good points, with the exception that if McLaren wanted a clarification, they could have asked for a clarification, which by the way is far cheaper than al appeal ;)


That is very true as well. :)

[passmeatissue]

As I understand it, McLaren's objection is that these points had been looked at and decided in a minuted meeting, using the correct formal process. So in theory the FOM temperature was the official temperature and the refuelling tank fuel temperature was the one that had to be 10 degrees below ambient. Either the stewards didn't know, or like too many stewards before them they looked at the short-term fallout instead of running the sport by the rules. They spent 3 hours deliberating so that does make it look like a "judgement call" - taking the easy way out.

So I think McLaren are right to challenge a poor bit of officiating, to improve things next time, but I don't think they or anyone else want to change the result.

[Valve Bounce]

As I understand it, McLaren's objection is that these points had been looked at and decided in a minuted meeting, using the correct formal process. So in theory the FOM temperature was the official temperature and the refuelling tank fuel temperature was the one that had to be 10 degrees below ambient. Either the stewards didn't know, or like too many stewards before them they looked at the short-term fallout instead of running the sport by the rules. They spent 3 hours deliberating so that does make it look like a "judgement call" - taking the easy way out.

So I think McLaren are right to challenge a poor bit of officiating, to improve things next time, but I don't think they or anyone else want to change the result.


Further to my reply to Juppe's post, I would like to ask, just for my own satisfaction if I may, the exact ruling which states the FOM temperature is the official temperature, and how this is measured and certified correct. I would also ask, if I may, the reference to the refuelling tank fuel temperature as the one which has to be correct, and how this is measured and the measuring instruments certified accurate and correct.

I would stress, at this stage, that this is only for my own knowledge. However, others may infer that the exact scientific procedures for temperature measurements and references may have been, at best, dubious, and quite possibly inaccurate.

[passmeatissue]

This was on pitpass (http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=33298)
quoting McLaren... "The team believes that the FIA has, in written clarification of the Technical Regulations and in its minutes of two Formula 1 Team Manager meetings, made clear how it would interpret and manage the Regulations and Procedures associated with the control of fuel temperatures. This process was followed in the normal manner by the FIA Technical Delegate following the Brazilian Grand Prix and the irregularities were reported by him to the Stewards of the meeting."

However Ted Kravitz on ITV (http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=Ted_Kravitz&PO_ID=41190) says that the FOM temperature data was in disarray, perhaps too much so to use even if they wanted to.

[spiritone]

How can a organization with the resources that the FIA has, always have such a problem enforcing their rules. You would think that a company this big could hire competent people and provide them with the proper tools for the job. This problem of selectively enforcing the rules has been going on for years.

It's bad for the competitors and for the reputation of the sport.

[passmeatissue]

I agree! there's a good item on this on planet-f1 today - http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3261_2828705,00.html

[jso1985]

But they don't want a clarification they want the others to be punished.
And they have to reasons:

1. Trying to win the WDC for Hamilton, but it's very unlikely
2. Trying to get more WCC points to offset some more millions from their $ 100.000.000 fine. As it stands they virtually got less points than Ferrari this season and they have to pay in excess of $ 50.000.000 fine. If however they manage to get Williams and BMW disqualified than they will get more points than earlier and they will also have most constructor points in which case there is more TV revenue virtually allocated to them and thus they will have to pay a smaller fine in the end.

So they are not appealing because they want a rule clarification, that's just a smoke screen as they have two way better reasons for an appeal than a mere rule clarification.
Not to mention that they did often seek for clarifications in the past without appealing (Renault's MDS, Ferrari floor beeing a few examples from the last 2 seasons).

Even if I think McLaren are acting like a-holes in this situation and should take defeat graviously and not try what they're trying.

be honest... if Ferrari would be involved in this situation you and the other Ferrari fans would be giving us 9 pages long threads with hundreds of posts about how BMW and Williams should stick to the rules and that Ferrari deserves the title cause the other cars weren't legal anyway... and bla bla

I mean this is getting boring to read in every single thread "RD and McLaren are the most pathetic losers ever" when you'd be supporting Ferrari if they wre doing the same!

[Tazio]

Even if I think McLaren are acting like a-holes in this situation and should take defeat graviously and not try what they're trying.

be honest... if Ferrari would be involved in this situation you and the other Ferrari fans would be giving us 9 pages long threads with hundreds of posts about how BMW and Williams should stick to the rules and that Ferrari deserves the title cause the other cars weren't legal anyway... and bla bla

I mean this is getting boring to read in every single thread "RD and McLaren are the most pathetic losers ever" when you'd be supporting Ferrari if they wre doing the same!
Link Please!!!

[jso1985]

this whole thread...

[wmcot]

Just for my knowledge, is it the temperature of the fuel in the fuel rigs or the temperature in the car or both that is covered by the FIA rules? It would be really simple to require a calibrated temperature sensor in the car's fuel tank which could easily be monitored if you want to get that precise. The same goes for the fuel rig.

(Perhaps they should take drivers' and team principals' temperatures, too?) ;)

[tinchote]

this whole thread...


but you didn't provide a link ;) :D

[jso1985]

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122352

happy now? or do I face a penalty for breaching the forum rules? :p :

[Juppe]

Like Valve here I myself have been involved in a lot of industrial measurements and it is always very difficult to tell, what are the correct readings from any measurement.

Therefore, a protocol should be established how the ambient temperature is measured, what meter is used, how it is calibrated and how the information will be transferred to the teams.

With critical measurements it is quite normal to use multiple meters and use the average value or the middle value as the reference reading.

If it is true that the FOM meter was directly in the sun, it was an amateurish mistake and the results should be ignored. Not only the reading is wrong, but the reading can also change very quickly so it would be very difficult to follow the rule.

I don't understand why the rule couldn't establish a definite minimum temperature. For example, the lowest temperature pumped into the cars can not be lower than 10 or 15 °C.

That should be clear enough and easy to follow.

[passmeatissue]

It is strange, isn't it? Temperatures get measured all the time in F1 and they are obviously extremely good at it.

It does seem clear though that the FIA had clarified that the fuel measurement was to be taken on a sample from the refuelling rig and not from the car, so I don't know why the stewards were agonising about that. Well, we have to suspect they were looking for an excuse not to change the result.

Also we don't know (I don't, anyway) if Meteo France were employed by the FIA or just those two teams, or any other teams. Nor do we know what the samples from the other teams measured, whether they were similar or very different, and whether the other teams had strictly used the FOM data as, apparently, they had been told to.

Funny how the FIA 'transparency' comes and goes... maybe we'll find out more on the 15th.

[BDunnell]

Funny how the FIA 'transparency' comes and goes... maybe we'll find out more on the 15th.

Indeed. I wonder if any teams have 'got away' with something similar at other times — unless every car really is checked at every race.

[tinchote]

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122352

happy now? or do I face a penalty for breaching the forum rules? :p :

Of course you do! Now you are advertising an internet forum on your post!!! :mad:



:rotflmao:

[Valve Bounce]

It is strange, isn't it? Temperatures get measured all the time in F1 and they are obviously extremely good at it.

It does seem clear though that the FIA had clarified that the fuel measurement was to be taken on a sample from the refuelling rig and not from the car, so I don't know why the stewards were agonising about that. Well, we have to suspect they were looking for an excuse not to change the result.

Also we don't know (I don't, anyway) if Meteo France were employed by the FIA or just those two teams, or any other teams. Nor do we know what the samples from the other teams measured, whether they were similar or very different, and whether the other teams had strictly used the FOM data as, apparently, they had been told to.

Funny how the FIA 'transparency' comes and goes... maybe we'll find out more on the 15th.


This is indeed strange. If accurate temperature gauges are installed in the refuelling rigs, these can be monitored instantaneously at any time and compared with the temperature provided by the FOM, and provided these are accurately measured according to a specified standard procedure, then cars can be black flagged as soon as the temperature variation between the fuel rig and the FOM exceeds the specified tolerances.

My laboratory technicians used to measure the temperature of the asphaltic concrete (bituminous concrete or hot mix to others) on the trucks and if these are outside tolerances, the truck load is dumped.

Here we have a billion dollar industry and there is confusion by those measuring the temperatures? This is not rocket science, is it!! I just don't understand how things can appear so lax which can then cause disputes later on in F1 races.

[BDunnell]

Here we have a billion dollar industry and there is confusion by those measuring the temperatures? This is not rocket science, is it!! I just don't understand how things can appear so lax which can then cause disputes later on in F1 races.

Just like the timing system in Brazil in 2003...

[Valve Bounce]

Strange as it may seem, I have not checked the positions of the various cars up to and including Lewis Hamilton's and the time difference in their finish positions.
So I would suggest one outcome of the appeal hearing for members hre to comment on.

If the temperature difference of the BMW and Williams cars did give these cars an advantage, would the gap to Lewis Hamilton have been such that he would have caught the 6th and maybe even the 5th car had they operated on the same fuel temperatures of his car? Did they have such an unfair advantage over Lewis Hamilton as to deprive him of finishing ahead of one or more of these cars and thus a chance of winning the Championship?

If yes, then Lewis Hamilton should be declared joint winner of the championship. If not, then there is only the issue of temperature determinations to be cast in stone to avoid future doubts.

[BDunnell]

Strange as it may seem, I have not checked the positions of the various cars up to and including Lewis Hamilton's and the time difference in their finish positions.
So I would suggest one outcome of the appeal hearing for members hre to comment on.

If the temperature difference of the BMW and Williams cars did give these cars an advantage, would the gap to Lewis Hamilton have been such that he would have caught the 6th and maybe even the 5th car had they operated on the same fuel temperatures of his car? Did they have such an unfair advantage over Lewis Hamilton as to deprive him of finishing ahead of one or more of these cars and thus a chance of winning the Championship?

If yes, then Lewis Hamilton should be declared joint winner of the championship. If not, then there is only the issue of temperature determinations to be cast in stone to avoid future doubts.

Definitely not. F1 results should never depend on a probability of something happening — basically, a 'what if'. Say Hamilton may have been able to have caught those ahead of him if their fuel temperatures had been correct. He may have collided with one of them while doing so. You cannot decide a race result with that as the basis to the reasoning.

[Juppe]

Strange as it may seem, I have not checked the positions of the various cars up to and including Lewis Hamilton's and the time difference in their finish positions.
So I would suggest one outcome of the appeal hearing for members hre to comment on.

If the temperature difference of the BMW and Williams cars did give these cars an advantage, would the gap to Lewis Hamilton have been such that he would have caught the 6th and maybe even the 5th car had they operated on the same fuel temperatures of his car? Did they have such an unfair advantage over Lewis Hamilton as to deprive him of finishing ahead of one or more of these cars and thus a chance of winning the Championship?

If yes, then Lewis Hamilton should be declared joint winner of the championship. If not, then there is only the issue of temperature determinations to be cast in stone to avoid future doubts.

I think that most people agree that there is no way the temperature difference could have affected the result of the race.

[spiritone]

Which most are you talking about. Any racing i've been involved in trick gas makes a pretty good difference (until you get caught)

[Juppe]

Which most are you talking about. Any racing i've been involved in trick gas makes a pretty good difference (until you get caught)

Not sure what trick gas exactly is, but if you are talking about a gasoline with different specifications that is completely different thing than to have a legal fuel 3-4 °C too cool for about three laps.

I would argue that the difference in performace would be impossible to detect.

[DonJippo]

Not sure what trick gas exactly is, but if you are talking about a gasoline with different specifications that is completely different thing than to have a legal fuel 3-4 °C too cool for about three laps.

I would argue that the difference in performace would be impossible to detect.

Well they say this gave an advantage of 1sec on the whole distance for BMW and Williams...

[spiritone]

By trick gas i mean, not the stuff that comes out your corner gas station pump. Most racing gas is specially blended gas for racing. Their are numerous products that you can blend with race gas to give you an advantage. Some legal, some not.

I'm sure that the gas that is used in F1 is highly developed fuel with ingrediants that i'm sure we"ll never hear about. I'm sure when we hear the evidence from the appeal ( if we get to hear any) we might get a clearer picture of what the advantage was in terms of performance gain.

[ioan]

I'm sure that the gas that is used in F1 is highly developed fuel with ingrediants that i'm sure we"ll never hear about. I'm sure when we hear the evidence from the appeal ( if we get to hear any) we might get a clearer picture of what the advantage was in terms of performance gain.

Not sure about that.

[Valve Bounce]

Well they say this gave an advantage of 1sec on the whole distance for BMW and Williams...


Well, if this is correct, then I would suggest that the Williams and BMW cars be penalised 1 second each. End of story.

[tinchote]

I'm sure that the gas that is used in F1 is highly developed fuel with ingrediants that i'm sure we"ll never hear about. I'm sure when we hear the evidence from the appeal ( if we get to hear any) we might get a clearer picture of what the advantage was in terms of performance gain.

The gas they use in F1 is very strictly regulated, and it is basically "street gasoline". There were crazy times regarding fuel in the past, but those days are long gone.

[passmeatissue]

Mike Gascoigne was quoted as saying about the cool fuel issue "it could be 5 or 10 hp easily". Because of the effect on charge temperature.

I thought it was supposed to be "pump fuel", but then Ferrari are thanking Shell for their contribution, so there must be some scope for messing with it. Before they regulated it used to be really toxic, apparently, dangerous to handle for the crews.

[BDunnell]

I thought it was supposed to be "pump fuel", but then Ferrari are thanking Shell for their contribution, so there must be some scope for messing with it. Before they regulated it used to be really toxic, apparently, dangerous to handle for the crews.

Yes, it was significantly more volatile.

[ozrevhead]

Well they say this gave an advantage of 1sec on the whole distance for BMW and Williams...
IF lewis hasnt made that mistake where he lost a chunk of time and IF mclaren did a two stopper than that stupid 3 stopper this would be irrelevent

Would McLaren bother if Hammy won the WDC? Somehow I dont think so.......

For it to have any advantage would the fuel have to stay as cool through the whole race? Without the gas tank being insulated that wouldnt happen I dont think.

They said during the telecast that it was about 60C temp on the race track

[ioan]

Mike Gascoigne was quoted as saying about the cool fuel issue "it could be 5 or 10 hp easily". Because of the effect on charge temperature.

They forgot to say that it was only for a lap or so. :rolleyes:

[wmcot]

Even if you argue that it might have been possible for Lewis to catch up to a car ahead of him, you couldn't definitely say that he would be able to pass that car.

There are just too many "what ifs" in this whole scenario that just don't offset the more concrete "what ifs" like - What if Lewis has pitted earlier in China? What if Lewis hadn't tried to pass Alonso unnecessarily in the opening laps at Brazil? What if Lewis didn't suffer a mechanical/human error on his car. Those are real issues and not just speculation. I don't see how speculation can be used to overturn the outcome of real, on-track incidents that decided the championship!

[passmeatissue]

Even if you argue that it might have been possible for Lewis to catch up to a car ahead of him, you couldn't definitely say that he would be able to pass that car.

There are just too many "what ifs" in this whole scenario that just don't offset the more concrete "what ifs" like - What if Lewis has pitted earlier in China? What if Lewis hadn't tried to pass Alonso unnecessarily in the opening laps at Brazil? What if Lewis didn't suffer a mechanical/human error on his car. Those are real issues and not just speculation. I don't see how speculation can be used to overturn the outcome of real, on-track incidents that decided the championship!

Like some earlier posts I don't think they should be using penalties to try to re-create what would have happened. For me the question of effect is just whether the rule is trivial or significant. If it's a significant rule then it should be enforced consistently, and although there are still some uncertainties what I suspect is that the stewards avoided giving a penalty not because of the facts of the measurements, but because of the effect it would have had on that particular occasion on the particular runners and riders involved. Andrew Davies on planet-f1.com suggested this could be the end of amateur stewards in F1, and I think that would be a good thing.

[BDunnell]

Like some earlier posts I don't think they should be using penalties to try to re-create what would have happened.

Very well put. :up:


Andrew Davies on planet-f1.com suggested this could be the end of amateur stewards in F1, and I think that would be a good thing.

I agree, though complete impartiality and independence would be required — and even then they would still be accused of bias by some.

[SGWilko]

Mclaren will appeal
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63570
I wish only the worst to this team and to Hamilton. Whatever bad happens to them, it will be deserved.
I HATE THEM.

Oh, jolly hockey sticks old bean.....

what what?

[BDunnell]

Oh, jolly hockey sticks old bean.....

what what?

Yes, it's nice to see such temperate, considered language on here, isn't it?

[janneppi]

What's the matter SGWilko? You couldn't find anything older to quote?
I bet there are some equally relevant comments from last December in the forum archives...

[SGWilko]

What's the matter SGWilko? You couldn't find anything older to quote?
I bet there are some equally relevant comments from last December in the forum archives...

Did you have something specific in mind?

You hum it sunshine, I'll play it.....

[ioan]

Oh, jolly hockey sticks old bean.....

what what?

Many people around here hate Ferrari although they will not publicly acknowledge it as it would make their subsequent arguing nil.

At least f1boat said what he thinks.
What's the problem with that?

[BDunnell]

Many people around here hate Ferrari although they will not publicly acknowledge it as it would make their subsequent arguing nil.

At least f1boat said what he thinks.
What's the problem with that?

Surely hatred should be reserved for rather worse things than an F1 team you don't like?

[wmcot]

Andrew Davies on planet-f1.com suggested this could be the end of amateur stewards in F1, and I think that would be a good thing.

I am 100% behind that! The only problem would be finding a group of stewards who understand the entire FIA rulebook. They would probably all end up being attorneys! ;)

[ioan]

Surely hatred should be reserved for rather worse things than an F1 team you don't like?

People might hate whatever causes them pain (physical or not).
It's something we all do feel, voluntarily or not.
Why not in relation with F1?

[BDunnell]

People might hate whatever causes them pain (physical or not).
It's something we all do feel, voluntarily or not.
Why not in relation with F1?

Because I think hatred goes way over the top when applied to an F1 team.

[Valve Bounce]

Many people around here hate Ferrari although they will not publicly acknowledge it as it would make their subsequent arguing nil.

At least f1boat said what he thinks.
What's the problem with that?

This is something that I just don't understand and is completely beyond my comprehension. I have loved Ferrari from when I was a kid, and have always dreamed of owning a Red Ferrari one day (OK, dream on :( )

But during SchM era with Ferrari, I do admit that my dislike for SchM resulted in my cheering for Williams (When Jacques drover there) then Mika later on.

Having said all that, there are 3 scenarios which McLaren's appeal can end up with:

1. Do nothing, and Kimi is Champion
2. Find both BMW and Williams guilty of a fuel temperature infraction and disqualify both cars from the results and give them a fine, plus grid penalties for the next year, but the drivers do not lose their positions or points.
3. Disqualify both Williams and BMW and move Lewis Hamilton up 3 places, thus giving him the championship.

Like it or not, things can go one of the three ways, and the last one will be the most unpopular with F1 fans, I suspect.

[wmcot]

Surely hatred should be reserved for rather worse things than an F1 team you don't like?

It would probably be a good idea for some of the fans to examine their attitudes. There is a big difference between disliking a person or team and hating them!

I think the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but they are not the same. I might dislike Ron Dennis, for example, but I don't hate him. Hatred could be construed as wishing him bodily harm or death! That's pretty extreme when we're discussing a sport! F1 isn't life or death despite the way some "fans" act!

[ArrowsFA1]

I was listening to 5Live's (http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/formulaone.shtml) podcast review of the Brazilian GP last night where this fuel/McLaren appeal issue was being discussed by David Croft, Maurice Hamilton and Peter Windsor. Interesting stuff :up:

[SGWilko]

Many people around here hate Ferrari although they will not publicly acknowledge it as it would make their subsequent arguing nil.

At least f1boat said what he thinks.
What's the problem with that?

If I read that post correctly, outwardly stating you hate Ferrari means any subsequent post by that person will be worthless, but you then go on to state that he is right for saying what he said, even though he said he hates McLaren/RD?

Surely, by applying your reasoning, his argument is 'nil'?

Or am I missing something?

My 'jolly hockey sticks' post was merely a reference to the spirit in which the particular post was made. No jibe, no chstening, just a general comment......

[ioan]

If I read that post correctly, outwardly stating you hate Ferrari means any subsequent post by that person will be worthless, but you then go on to state that he is right for saying what he said, even though he said he hates McLaren/RD?

Surely, by applying your reasoning, his argument is 'nil'?

Or am I missing something?

My 'jolly hockey sticks' post was merely a reference to the spirit in which the particular post was made. No jibe, no chstening, just a general comment......

Yes that would make his posts about McLaren to be pretty much disregarded because of his feelings towards them. However there are another 10 teams in F1.

In the past there was, and I believe there still is, hatred towards Ferrari expressed around here. But very very few would say it as directly as he did it. I call it hypocrisy, from the part of these people, as their feeling are obvious still they maintain that they have an objective view about F1.

[ioan]

Hatred could be construed as wishing him bodily harm or death! That's pretty extreme when we're discussing a sport! F1 isn't life or death despite the way some "fans" act!

I wouldn't go down that road.
Hate is a pretty strong word, but I do not associate it with bodily harm or death. If I hate something (or someone, which is very rare) than I simply wish I don't see it anymore. But certainly don't imagine doing any harm to anything or anyone.

Just my 2c.

[BDunnell]

It would probably be a good idea for some of the fans to examine their attitudes. There is a big difference between disliking a person or team and hating them!

I think the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but they are not the same. I might dislike Ron Dennis, for example, but I don't hate him. Hatred could be construed as wishing him bodily harm or death! That's pretty extreme when we're discussing a sport! F1 isn't life or death despite the way some "fans" act!

I agree. Such language gets thrown around very loosely nowadays, and not just when discussing F1. Hatred is too strong an emotion to have against an F1 team you don't 'support' (a concept that I also find strange, but never mind).

[passmeatissue]

There are two kinds of forumers

- those who come to exchange ideas and have fun, a bit of wordplay, learn things you didn't know, persuade and be persuaded by reasoning,

- and those who come to fight their unchanging cause through 1,000,000 posts come what may.

It's a trap for some of these to forget that it's sport, not the real world.

[Malbec]

It would probably be a good idea for some of the fans to examine their attitudes. There is a big difference between disliking a person or team and hating them!

I think the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but they are not the same. I might dislike Ron Dennis, for example, but I don't hate him. Hatred could be construed as wishing him bodily harm or death! That's pretty extreme when we're discussing a sport! F1 isn't life or death despite the way some "fans" act!

I totally agree but I wonder how many people keep mentioning hate because English isn't their first language and are unaware of the distinction between that and dislike?

[BDunnell]

There are two kinds of forumers

- those who come to exchange ideas and have fun, a bit of wordplay, learn things you didn't know, persuade and be persuaded by reasoning,

- and those who come to fight their unchanging cause through 1,000,000 posts come what may.

It's a trap for some of these to forget that it's sport, not the real world.

Never have truer words been spoken/written on here.

[BDunnell]

I totally agree but I wonder how many people keep mentioning hate because English isn't their first language and are unaware of the distinction between that and dislike?

I would say that some of those responsible have made it quite clear that they know what they've been saying. Fair comment though.

[ioan]

I totally agree but I wonder how many people keep mentioning hate because English isn't their first language and are unaware of the distinction between that and dislike?

Let's make it clear:



Often the verb "to hate" is used casually as an exaggeration to describe things one merely dislikes, such as a particular style of architecture, a certain climate or some particular kind of food.

"Hatred" is also used to describe feelings of prejudice, bigotry or condemnation (see shunning) against a class of people and members of that class.

The passions of hate arise from several features of our thinking process. These include a desire to strengthen our community and to alleviate our fear. The ability to quickly separate friend from foe is essential to self-defense and safety and provides the origins of hate.[1]

However, hatred in modern life is frequently unrelated to survival or self-defense. People are capable of hating others for any particular reason, people with different political and religious views, different lifestyles, and fans of opposing sports teams, to name but a few.


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

So, as I already pointed it out, "hatred" is not about wishing someone's death or bodily harm.
It's more like a very very deep dislike. And as pointed out in those quotes it is frequent in supporters of different sports.

[Tazio]

There are two kinds of forumers

- those who come to exchange ideas and have fun, a bit of wordplay, learn things you didn't know, persuade and be persuaded by reasoning,

- and those who come to fight their unchanging cause through 1,000,000 posts come what may.

It's a trap for some of these to forget that it's sport, not the real world.
And which type did you get pitched out of
before you graced us with your self-righteous, Anglo, slanted, spiel.

[janneppi]

If there is anything worthwhile to be said about the fuel issue that hasn't been said during the 22 pages of this thread you'd better come up with something soon, my finger is already howering on the "close thread" button. ;)

[ioan]

There are two kinds of forumers

- those who come to exchange ideas and have fun, a bit of wordplay, learn things you didn't know, persuade and be persuaded by reasoning,

- and those who come to fight their unchanging cause through 1,000,000 posts come what may.

It's a trap for some of these to forget that it's sport, not the real world.

And those who start rubbish threads without any other reason than having fun, aren't they also a category? :mad:

[ioan]

If there is anything worthwhile to be said about the fuel issue that hasn't been said during the 22 pages of this thread you'd better come up with something soon, my finger is already howering on the "close thread" button. ;)

You may open it again on 15th November. ;)

[janneppi]

Will do.