Printable View
Do you mean by LOGIC as generally known logic or by YOUR LOGIC?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
Given this thread I believe that none of us can let go of common sense logic and use your logic, so it's better to stop this nonsense you are spreading.
And when on trial as MAC is, it has always been a fav tactic of many a lawyer to try to distract the attention and need for punishment of your client, by pointing the finger at someone else, to smear the victim--ala a certain basketball player's tactic--to point out that gee, if she did not want sex, why were she asking for it by being in the room, and not only that, she had sex with another guy, why they found so much DNA material there, they still have not figured out who all she been sleeping with........and so on.....
Okay ferrari ain't no angel, so what.....guilty is still guilty.....
And again, it is simply proved by MAC's own covert actions.
Case closed. :s mash:
Get a rope.
opps is that "good for the sake of the sport"????...what about bernie's money...and then LH's claim for eternal fame, which will vastly increase our future rervenue...okay now THAT EXCUSE we can all understand..... :beer:
That's very true, which is why they are no longer running with the floor they ran in Australia ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
gee, I thought it was because the FIA told mac that Mac could not use Mac's "new design", so since Mac could not do it, then both BMW and Ferrari decided they could not either.... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Im a little confused but think you may have a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
for the sake of arguement, we can agree that the part was illegal and discuss what McLaren did and why they did it.
you say that they didnt want to burn their source and I think youre correct in that. what their reasoning is for omitting the source and asking for clarification is an interesting question.
if they had of gone to the FIA and said that they want to protest the device, as they believe it was illegal then they would have had to say why they thought it was illegal. The chances are that Ferrari would have been officially warned to change the device and potentially omitted from the race results but Mclaren would have had to say they had a tip off.
similarly, if they went to the FIA and said they had a whistle blower, the chances are that Nigels name would have got back to Ferrari. neither of these would have been good for Nigel and the first option bad for the sport in general.
perhaps there was good intention from McLaren and Ron not to get Ferrari penalised but I dont think so.
you may well be right that someone tipping them off as to any dirty tricks Ferrari were using was an attractive option or it may be that Ron said thanks but no more matey because this is not the way we want to do business.
detirmining whether Ferrari had an illegal part was the easy bit and just the tip of the ice cube, so to speak. the iceberg is another matter.
remember when I mentioned that there were 2 seperate instances, an email and a dossier a week or two before it was confirmed in the press. from other things I know, I truly believe Ron had decided that enough was enough after the first email and having this communication was dangerous which is why he ordered it cut. it was that point onwards that Mike went native.
No, pal, very much not the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
I do not consider something to be illegal before clarification by the governing body makes it illegal.
Funnily enough, neither does the Governing Body.
You keep quoting the Ferrari as being illegal, but want to ignore the legal terms that would define illegality and legality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
And I repeat, the only terms to judge illegality are in legal terms.
Since you haven't answered my question from two days ago, and you keep repeating the "illegal" word: could you please care to explain me which regulation was violated by Ferrari's floor at Australia (thus making it illegal) ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
Au contraire, as I believe you will find they say on the Champs D'Elysee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
dont you think thats rather a childish stance to take on a discussion forum?Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
we all know that the FIA have not said that the device fitted to the Ferrari was illigal.
They have said that the design, which allegedly came from Ferrari, was illegal. we also know that after they said this, Ferrari immediatly took it off their car.
but, you are 100% correct that the FIA did not say the actual device on the Ferrari was illegal.
now, I ask the question as we can deal with opinions here as well can we not?
do you think that the device on the Ferrari was a legal device. not what the FIA say but Logically, would you say it behaved in a similar way to the McLaren design?
come on man. stop hiding behind semantics and lets look at the nuts and bolts of this :laugh:
You are wrong. The FIA didn't say that the device was illegal. When McLaren asked for "clarification", the testing procedures were changed in such a way as to make Ferrari's floor illegal. It's the way things are done in F1, and it has happened many times in the last decade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
I believe the Ferrari device was legal at Melbourne precisely because the FIA say it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
The Mclaren device would, assuming it was the same, also have been legal at Melbourne.
I cannot ignore the verdict of the FIA. They are the governing body of the sport and therefore outweigh the opinion of a Mclaren fan with a dodgy understanding of legal principles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
FIA said nothing about the ferrari and BMW floors
What they addressed was a proposed design by MAc that as presented, they said, would be strictly forbidden even though it passed the test.....so MAc' proposed floor was deemed to be not permitted under the rules, regardless of whether it could pass the test...and the way Mac put it, explcitly suggested that MAc did not know whether legal or illegal either, hence the request for clarification from Mac :?:
Now one might point out that it seemed very similar to the ferrari design, well, then this email pops.......but why quibble over semantics...and minor details......
MAC did not say, outright, that someone has contacted us about illegal activities and here is ALL we know FIA-- you decide FIA what to do......and ah, there's the rub that condenms
:vader:
I would like to point out for the admins...that this is a personal attack... I've been penalized for lessQuote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Article 3.15 of the Technical RegulationsQuote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
Ok, and can you explain then how the cars passed several layers of scrutineering at Australia? Maybe some conspiracy? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by eu
That's the typical example of a rule that is impossible to police. There is no such thing as "no degree of freedom": such a part would not vibrate, for example. That's why the rules are enforced by certain measurements (tests): you fail the test, you are illegal, you pass the test, you are legal.
If it is so illegal, then MAc should have protestedQuote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
Instead, Mac wrote a proposal for what they said their new design to see if it was legal.
FIA says NO
No protest by Mac.
The "case" going forward ain't about the sins of Ferrari but about the sins of Mac: did Mac attempt to (SECRETLY) benefit from certain information stolen from Ferrari and to continue to seek future benefits by hiding the info source..
Easy answer: If MAc simply protested, and said this person is sending us emails saying this, we do not know but here it all is...and so we step back, then this would NOT be an issue, and the answer to the question is NO.
Case Closed. Rd can go back to having more suntan lotion rubbed on from LH.
Yet, like a school child caught with his fingers in the jar, tries to excuse himself by saying that Joey did it too. And just how many other men did she sleep with before she claims I raped her.......and so she is not worthy to be a victim.....now if crimes must be measured by the worthiness of the victim, then vigilante justice is all that counts....
But RD is saying but none of this matters the floor was illegal....therefore it is okay to steal and help hide the fact of the theft....that is what you call being:
"an accomplice AFTER the fact......" (one who aids and abets another by hiding evidence of a crime IS EXACTLY that......) and "a party to the crime" (one who acts in direct concert with another lawbreaker is quilty of being as culpable of a party to the crime, the same as all of the parties to the crime).
if the glove fits, you must convict
Point 1 - You are correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
Point 2 - Your first paragraph gives you your own answer - the floor was legal until the FIA changed the tests. At the time of the Melbourne race a certain static load was used to measure the flexibility of the floor (as is used in other aero devices.) Ferrari passed the test and raced with a legal floor. After Melbourne, the test was changed with an increased load causing more flexing so the floors of Ferrari and I believe others had to be modified.
In the future, the FIA can change the tests again with even greater loads and I'm sure they'll find floors flexing or, perhaps, snapping off. It's similar to your math instructor giving you an algebra test (fixed load) which you pass. A couple of weeks later he gives you a calculus test which you do not pass (added loading) unless you have crammed for the exam (modified the strength of your knowledge.) If you don't pass the Calculus exam, it doesn't mean that you cheated on your Algebra exam...
(I know I'm wasting my time with another example, but maybe one of them will "click" and a little light will go on.)
But not until the method of testing was changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by eu
After endless posts on this same subject, I think I'm closer to psychotic! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Malllen
Because it took Whiting a week to rule on the matter. There was no protest in Australia, just a request for clarification, which is why (I assume) there was never a chance of the race results being changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations was applied by Charlie Whiting in direct response to the content of McLaren's letter, which was given to the FIA at the Australian GP. Whiting gave his ruling a week later. The floor test was changed after Whiting had ruled that "...any such device [as outlined in McLaren's letter] would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations".Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
As the information contained in McLaren's letter was based on details of Ferrari's floor provided by a Ferrari employee, it can be argued that Ferrari's floor was found to be in breach of Article 3.15, therefore "illegal" in F1 terms.
That is why Ron Dennis used the term "illegal" when he said "Were it not for Mr Stepney drawing this illegal device to the attention of McLaren, and McLaren drawing it to the attention of the FIA, there is every reason to suppose that Ferrari would have continued to race with an illegal car."
Now, as Ferrari were never penalised, and the Australian GP results stood, it can also be argued that Ferrari's floor was legal at the time it was raced, therefore not illegal in F1 terms.
Simple :crazy: :p
I fail to understand how obviously intelligent people fail to grasp the basics of legality or illegality.Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
the FIA said such a device would be illegal. period!
they did not change the rules to make it illegal but introduced a different testing procedure to pick up on teams using the device when they shouldn't.
lets take Murder. If you murdered someone 20 years ago but didn't get caught, is it still illegal?
now, with the advent of DNA evidence, you are identified and tried, how far do you think your defence will get you with the defence that DNA evidence wasn't used 20 years ago so it wasnt illegal. all the way to the Gallows is my guess :D
Christ on a bike....
You Tommy Truckers will argue till the cows come home!
Flexing floors - all materials, to some degree will flex. Some a lot, some a little, and some not very much at all. So, some degree of telerance is allowed for in the rules to cater for this natural flexing.
However, what seems very clear to me is, that the Ferrari floor solution was created in a way to flex only within the stated tolerance allowed during the specific load tests in scrutineering, but at higher loads (those experienced at speed) the floor flexed in excess of this stated tolerance providing an aero benefit, and is therefore illegal. It is illegal, because it is flexing in excess of that permitted.
Now, I think we can probably all agree that testing this at racing speed is a little tricky, poor Charlie certainly can't run THAT fast.......
So, Charlie, realising that things must be corrected, the load test is changed, and a greater load is applied to the floor. The rule regarding floor flex allowance is the same, just the testing methodology is changed.
So, while applying the same rules, but in a way that better recreates 'racing at speed load conditions' the Ferrari (and others) floor will flex in excess of the stated tolerance.
So, is it still legal?
It WAS illegal, but the test at the time was inadequate to highlight the bahaviour, so it was 'overlooked'
It is almost a half empty/half full scenario. You are never going to agree, so just let it go.
Sorry to disturb the delightful little chit chat. :rolleyes:
I'm not sure it has been mentioned already and quite frankly don't care to look more than three pages behind.
There was a story on a Finnish news site that the panel of judges in Stepney gate is being revied, there are 18 judges in the big list.
No Germans, Italians, Brits or spaniards allowed, so apparently judges will be:
Robert Winghe, Belgium
Pierre Torrigny, Canada
Philippe Narmino, Monaco
Macedo Cunho, portugal
David Miles, australia
:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Why is it so important to establish that Ferrari's floor was legal in the context of "Stepneygate"? Perhaps because the alternative is unpalatable for those looking to establish McLaren's guilt, and it undermines the accusations that have been made against McLaren since the beginning of July.
Whatever, Ferrari have said they will fully explain their position on the entire matter at the appeal. Perhaps the 13th September will finally see evidence of the many accusations being made. The press will be there so full details are expected.
Christ on a bike! Now that has to be the most priceless comment on this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
You are the one who fails to understand the issue of legality and illegality.
You are the one who cannot comprehend that by passing the original test, the FIA were satisfied that the floor conformed to the regulations. Et voila, the floor was deemed legal by the Governing Authority.
The FIA, being the governing authority, are the sole arbitors of what passes scrutineering and the tests to prove legality. It is not you nor Ron Dennis nor anybody else, it is the FIA. They said legal in Melbourne, that's the final word.
That, my dear child, is why the floor was legal and why no protests were made.
One moment you are saying 'legal be damned' and the next claiming knowledge of legality/illegality? The inconsistent argument you have put forward is nothing short of being a joke.
I would pay money to see you take on a case in the justice system...You'd be laughed out of court.
It's environmentally friendly, you see....... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Well, the FIA estabilished for themselves that the floor was legal. It is only those who cannot accept that who argue anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
As for the legality of the Ferrari floor, as decided by the FIA, having any effect on estabilishing Mclaren's guilt since July....may I please remind you that Mclaren have been found guilty already by the FIA.
Those of us who you suspect of accusing Mclaren are not accusing at all, merely acknowledging the verdict.
It is the punishment we're not convinced of.
[quote="Flat.tyres"]lets take Murder. If you murdered someone 20 years ago but didn't get caught, is it still illegal?
now, with the advent of DNA evidence, you are identified and tried, how far do you think your defence will get you with the defence that DNA evidence wasn't used 20 years ago so it wasnt illegal. all the way to the Gallows is my guess[quote="Flat.tyres"]
Once again, you are giving misleading information and, once again, your legal knowledge let's you down.
The Ferrari floor is not comparable to your Murder scenario, for one simple but legally resolute reason....
They have, in effect, already been judged by the Governing Body.
It should be noted that under the EU legal constitution, a defendant can plead 'Autrefois acquit', the definition of which is "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State".
More commonly this is known as Double Jeopardy.
Having been passed as legal by the FIA stewards, who are invested with the authority of the FIA just in the same way as a Judge is invested with the powers of the legal system, Ferrari have already been cleared.
This occurred at Melbourne.
Since the tests were changed at Malaysia and both Ferrari's found to be in compliance with the new regulations, there is no new evidence to be had.
This is were you DNA scenario collapses....there is no evidence.
Therefore, any later accusations of Illegality have already been considered and rejected.
So, now that your misleading and unknowledgable argument has been revealed as such, the real situation is that Ferrari simply can plead 'Autrefois acquit' and your argument is legally dead.
Since your argument is legally dead, it serves no purpose.....Unless you do not recognise the Governing Body, which doesn't help your argument at all anyway, because funnily enough, the last two people I can recall who did not recognise a governing body were Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic.
Now, I'm sure you don't want to be considered in that kind of company?
All the way to the gallows?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
My dear boy, I would draw you're attention to the case of Derek Bentley, who was posthumously pardoned.
Not exactly a fine example for your idea of justice.
In the light of your opinion, and for the purposes of clarity, what exactly was the FIA's Charlie Whiting ruling on when he said that "...any such device would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations"?Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
I had understood that the information provided to the FIA by McLaren, upon which Whiting made his judgement, came from a Ferrari employee and detailed the way in which Ferrari's floor, as it appeared at the Australian GP, worked. Is that not correct?
That would appear to be correct, but has no legal impact.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
The clarification occurred after Melbourne, after the FIA (whose technical delegate is the very same Charlie Whiting you like to quote) had cleared the F2007's.
I really do suggest you try to understand the significance of 'Autrefois acquit', as it is the key to the issue of the legality of the Ferrari floor.
Therefore, using the legal basis of 'Autrefois acquit', Charlie Whiting's judgement on the Mclaren clarification is irrelevant to the case of the Ferrari's at Melbourne.
They were legally announced as being legal. Once that was done, all your wailing and gnashing of teeth is pointless.
so, it probably contravened the rules but they got off with it because it wasn't picked up. is that what your trying to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
phewwww, thought we would never get there :D
I am not saying it contravened the rules. Far from it. I am stating the exact opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
Once it was passed by the scrutineers at the end of the Australian GP it was officially legal. It passed the only tests required to prove it's legality.
Charlie Whitings judgement was made after that, as was the change to the testing procedure,which makes it irrelevant.
I would love to here how you are going to argue against the decision of the regulatory body and against the common legal practice of 'Autrefois acquit' in a way that is relevant to the case in hand and does not rely on the pathetic non-legal and therefore non-relevant examples you've offered to date.
I won't hold my breath though, as previous form suggests I may have requested something beyond your abilities.
You use the word 'Probably'.....and you seriously want to claim a victory when 'probably' has been shown countless times not to be good enough to make a conviction on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
If all you've got is 'probably' then I really would advise you give up.
The FIA wouldn't accept that....they didn't with the issue of Mclaren benefitting from the dossier, may I remind you...and neither do I.
Hard, undeniable facts are all that are worth discussing, and so far you have failed to bring any to the discussion.
And you claim other people are childish? Funny, because the level of your logic isn't exactly graduate level.
I'd rather watch skantilly clad ladies instead of edit peoples posts, so let's not go to personal attacks, thanks.
Dare i suggest talking about my beautiful post #384 instead of going round and round the same bloody circle for another ten pages. :)
No Italians??????????? Honestly, if you can't nobble a jury nowadays then there really is no justice!Quote:
Originally Posted by janneppi
Just put their (and mine) names on your ignore list button or whatever that thing is, and then you will not have to be bothered..... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by janneppi
And I was going to talk about about it, but I was afraid it would be "off-topic" and would just get me more penalty points or whatever.......... :eek:
You see we also have an advantage on mods, we can have an ignore list, they can't! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
Oh my, Ferrari invented a material that flexes more when subjected to higher loads! And I was living with the impression that this is something that happens with any material. \:Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
No it isn't illegal because it didn't flex in excess of what permitted by the rules when loaded with the loads specified in the rules. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Common sense and a bit of physics are more than enough to understand it. Obviously the FIA have more of both than some members around here. :p :