The "Cold Fuel" saga continued [Part 1]

[passmeatissue]

Evil does not exist only in fantasy books and movies. Trying to ruin a young man's lifetime achievement, hiding between lies, after spying on your rival - for me this is evil. It is my opinion. McLaren for me represented evil this year.

Well I can only say your perspective makes no sense to me. For me it it a motor racing competition that I watch as a leisure activity.

[F1boat]

Well I can only say your perspective makes no sense to me. For me it it a motor racing competition that I watch as a leisure activity.

You can do good or bad in a child's play as well. But lets not turn this into pointless debate :)

[passmeatissue]

You can do good or bad in a child's play as well. But lets not turn this into pointless debate :)

I agree. It would be pointless. :)

[grantb4]

Mario Theissen at BMW says they absolutely still need clarification on the rule:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64016

[Valve Bounce]

"It has become quite clear that the regulations state a very precise difference of temperature of 10 degrees (centigrade) but they do not define precisely how and when the two reference points are taken," said Theissen.

I think the FIA must go further and clearly state categorically what the penalties would be.

[passmeatissue]

"It has become quite clear that the regulations state a very precise difference of temperature of 10 degrees (centigrade) but they do not define precisely how and when the two reference points are taken," said Theissen.

I think the FIA must go further and clearly state categorically what the penalties would be.

I agree. I still don't understand how the measurement definitions aren't in place already. I thought there was a recorded decision on the measurement issues, taken after the problems with the tech regs were spotted, but Dr Mario is saying there isn't.

Mind you, nor do I understand how the ICA meeting took two days, and heard the whole case, before deciding the case was not in fact admissible.

Hard not to be a bit suspicious, actually :eek:

[ioan]

Hard not to be a bit suspicious, actually :eek:

All we got from you till now are unfounded suspicions, so nothing new, really.

[Valve Bounce]

I was on a boat that protested another yacht in the Sonata World Champs way back. The entire protest was heard and every consideration given to all the facts before the Protest committee decided that the protest did not comply in that I had waited too long to raise the protest flag.

Under the circumstances, the ICA meeting had to hear all the facts and decide on the case as a whole. The fact that the "protest" was submitted too late or whatever other reasons must have been decided as one of the items considered.

[passmeatissue]

I was on a boat that protested another yacht in the Sonata World Champs way back. The entire protest was heard and every consideration given to all the facts before the Protest committee decided that the protest did not comply in that I had waited too long to raise the protest flag.

Under the circumstances, the ICA meeting had to hear all the facts and decide on the case as a whole. The fact that the "protest" was submitted too late or whatever other reasons must have been decided as one of the items considered.

Oh, well perhaps it's not that unusual then. The one time I have been involved in a court case, there was an initial hearing to hear a claim that there was "no case to answer". The evidence was briefly reviewed to make that decision, and it was decided that there was no case to answer and it was stopped at that point.

I'm surprised with the cool fuel hearing because the grounds for accepting or rejecting the appeal don't relate to the measurements or tech regs, but to the process, so in principle all the fuel-related evidence was redundant.

It seems this time they're not going to release the full finding, so I guess we'll never know, opacity rules again...

[GP-M3]

As a further bit of good news (LOL) According to SpeedTV.com

"The decision also confirms that McLaren is left footing the bill for the cost of the appeal."

Here it is in legalees:

LEAVES it to the appellant to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 190 of the International Sporting Code and Article 24 of the Rules of the International Court of Appeal.

Well, McLaren put forth the bogus appeal. Even though it was their desire to change the results (their actual only reason for the appeal imo) They should have protested the results instead of lodging the appeal. I think they wanted to say to everyone 'we just want some rules clarification' and to have protested would have immediatly exposed them as bad sports. (At least they wouldn't have been hypocrites!) LOL good stuff. :p

May Lewis' engine return to it's ever exploding ways of 2006 in 2008!

http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/41681/

[markabilly]

As a further bit of good news (LOL) According to SpeedTV.com

"The decision also confirms that McLaren is left footing the bill for the cost of the appeal."

Here it is in legalees:

LEAVES it to the appellant to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 190 of the International Sporting Code and Article 24 of the Rules of the International Court of Appeal.

Well, McLaren put forth the bogus appeal. Even though it was their desire to change the results (their actual only reason for the appeal imo) They should have protested the results instead of lodging the appeal. I think they wanted to say to everyone 'we just want some rules clarification' and to have protested would have immediatly exposed them as bad sports. (At least they wouldn't have been hypocrites!) LOL good stuff. :p

May Lewis' engine return to it's ever exploding ways of 2006 in 2008!

http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/41681/
Most interesting was this from the above quoted article:
Incidentally, in the course of the ICA discussions BMW, Williams and even Ferrari presented data showing the respective teams' own readings of fuel tank and/or fuel rail temperatures recorded during the Brazilian race (http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/41681/#).

McLaren was asked to supply the same data, but the team declined to do so, despite confirming that it took similar measurements. Sources suggest that this did not come across very well in the courtroom.

What were they hiding? :confused: :confused: :confused:

And this time, clearly all the whining matters not. Mac did not have the backbone to formally protest, whined that they were not protesting the result even after the hearing, and then at the hearing did exactly that. Then they refused to supply their temp readings, So much for their press release issued after the ruling that they were only "trying to work with the teams" to clarifiy the rules. Must have embarrassed even old dead Paul Joseph Goebbels the author of the bigger the lie, the more will believe it.

[Mark]

Not sure what went wrong with this thread but I've dragged it out of the database, but there is a part 2 now, so, closed! :p

[pino]

Mark thanks for clarify this :)