Renault investigated by FIA !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

They are not identical either, are they?

Well it wasn't a court of law.

---

You have a problem with analogies, don't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

Hill is the one who understands the regs. Read them, there is no way a partially sprung floor met 3.15. 3.17 had to be met as well as, not instead of, 3.15 (see 2.4). The FIA added 3.17.6 to get Ferrari off the hook after Melbourne.

---

But "dear old Damon" forgot to mention that the FIA determined that McLaren and RedBull were running similar devices, didn't he?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63877

Dateline Paris Feb. 25, 2008..........................................

In a statement released today, FIA President Max Mosley sought to reassure the fans of Formula 1 that the FIA does indeed listen to, and respond to public opinion. " Many of you have voiced your displeasure over the verdict of the Ferrari-McLaren affair, especially in light of the fact that McLaren didn't actively solicit the documents and were themselves, in a sense, victims of the actions of a rogue Ferrari employee." said Mosley. "Therefore, in the matter of the McLaren-Renault affair, we can announce with pride that McLaren has been fined $100 million dollars for allowing a rogue/former employee to violate sporting regulation 151c by sharing McLaren intellectual property with Renault. In addition, McLaren will not be allowed to collect points towards the constructor's championship in the 2008 season." He continued " Renault has been fined $15, one dollar for each Renault engineer that saw the data." Mosley stated that he felt confident this verdict would address the issues of fair play raised by the public.

He also confirmed that a complaint had been filed by Ferrari against Force India over the theft of Ferrari intellectual property because of Force India's use of an uppercase "F" in the team name. No hearing date has been set.

Renault has expressed shock and outrage over the amount of the fine and will appeal the verdict. Said Flav " Fifteen dollars is outragous! This could break us!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

Just when I thought it be safe to put my well worn copy of the prince back on the shelf....oh well,

I was reading the story of the time of a certain village was in turmoil with open rebellion everywhere and the prince sends in a certain character to "take care of da dirty rats". After much taking care, and other executions, da prince gets wind of the people outcry, so he shows up, expresses dismay and disgust at the gusto of the faithful servant, and has the faithful servant terminated with extreme prejudice aka "taken care of", much to the relief and joy of the remaining few, who swore blind loyalty forever to their merciful prince


Now, turning our attention to the village in turmoil, we have the Flavio who has rocked the boat upon occaision, and RD who has rocked the boat much more seriously. Flavio is the business partner of bernie and bernie is the god of the sport and friend of Max, but RD is the one big pain in the but who can not get his golden boy choker to win the wdc, much to the dismay of revenue---So what to do?

The investigation based on character references of Bernie as to flavio's outstanding character will reveal that Flavio, unlike RD, took all appropriate measures to maintain the sanctuality of the sport......other details to be worked out....

---

Weell nooow i said details to be worked out, however the following seems to have done that quite nicely

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

Dateline Paris Feb. 25, 2008..........................................

In a statement released today, FIA President Max Mosley sought to reassure the fans of Formula 1 that the FIA does indeed listen to, and respond to public opinion. " Many of you have voiced your displeasure over the verdict of the Ferrari-McLaren affair, especially in light of the fact that McLaren didn't actively solicit the documents and were themselves, in a sense, victims of the actions of a rogue Ferrari employee." said Mosley. "Therefore, in the matter of the McLaren-Renault affair, we can announce with pride that McLaren has been fined $100 million dollars for allowing a rogue/former employee to violate sporting regulation 151c by sharing McLaren intellectual property with Renault. In addition, McLaren will not be allowed to collect points towards the constructor's championship in the 2008 season." He continued " Renault has been fined $15, one dollar for each Renault engineer that saw the data." Mosley stated that he felt confident this verdict would address the issues of fair play raised by the public.

He also confirmed that a complaint had been filed by Ferrari against Force India over the theft of Ferrari intellectual property because of Force India's use of an uppercase "F" in the team name. No hearing date has been set.

Renault has expressed shock and outrage over the amount of the fine and will appeal the verdict. Said Flav " Fifteen dollars is outragous! This could break us!"

---

But you fogot to add:

" Renault and Maclaren computers will no longer be allowed to be able to use or access floppy disks and they will be inspected to be sure that this rule is strictly obeyed for the entire year of 2008"

"Further, to prevent further such incidents in the future, all teams are hereby ordered to handle all spying issues internally and no team may take advantage of the secrets of another team on "how to cheat without being caught" without suspending the engineer providing the information for an indefinite period of time; however all such future matters will not be disclosed to the public to preserve the integrity of the sport"

"Finally there is no truth to the rumors that the new FIA inspection sticker was deliberately designed to be identical to the team logo of a certain team jointly owned by two certain individuals and will now be one foot and by two feet, to be displayed in a prominent postion on both sides of all cars in competition as the design was simply a mere coincidence."


Of course, we should not be too smug about this, as the actual events and rulings will be more outlandish than anything that could be dreamed up,,,,,,,,,

Gee!! the end of season Blues are affecting us badly this time of year. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

You have a problem with analogies, don't you?

---

Absolutely! They're used to avoid talking about the actual subject and take the discussion onto something else. For example, someone who wants to defend a partisan view about the McLaren WMSC hearings but hasn't read the verdict or the transcripts, can start talking about credit cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

But "dear old Damon" forgot to mention that the FIA determined that McLaren and RedBull were running similar devices, didn't he?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63877

---

Well I personally am hoping to get a bit more information about this. Max saying that McLaren were running the same floor as Ferrari doesn't square with Jonathan Neale trying to introduce the issue into the WMSC hearing.

But even if McLaren were, that wouldn't make it comply. The problem is that the FIA said the design complied with the letter of the rules, but it did not. Read clause 3.15. It's no answer to say "the FIA said it was OK". That is the problem, not the solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

Absolutely! They're used to avoid talking about the actual subject and take the discussion onto something else. For example, someone who wants to defend a partisan view about the McLaren WMSC hearings but hasn't read the verdict or the transcripts, can start talking about credit cards.

---

And very often, such comparisons are largely irrelevant because no direct comparisons can be made between situations in one field and another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

But even if McLaren were, that wouldn't make it comply. The problem is that the FIA said the design complied with the letter of the rules, but it did not. Read clause 3.15. It's no answer to say "the FIA said it was OK". That is the problem, not the solution.

---

That's not the case, because for obvious reasons the enforcement of the rules is made in terms of measurements. Otherwise, a marshal would be able to say for example "this part flexes too much" and ban a car. Rules like 3.15 express what is usually called "the spirit of the rules", which is the guide used to determine the measurement test. And that's precisely what happened after Australia: it was noted that these movable floors complied with the letter of the rules but not the spirit, and the measurements were changed accordingly.

Tinchote. This is a classic case of everyone sucks except for who I support. Facts or truth don't enter into this argument.