Denial, it dosn't matter how 'minor' the violation was, it was still a violation of the rules.
Denial, it dosn't matter how 'minor' the violation was, it was still a violation of the rules.
I'll disagree with the cheating but I agree with you. They violated the rules so they were in the wrong :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by macksrallye
It's like this in every form of motorsport and over the last few years in F1 we've seen varying levels of punishment for some drivers and not for others. Some drivers in F1 get stop and go penalties for minor offences and some seem to get away with bigger offences. I've outlined previously why I think the Fords deserved a bigger penalty but tbh if Citroen had got 5 minutes then I would have thought that reasonable too. The difference for me in the two cases is that Ford was running a part which if tried to homologate, would never have been approved whereas Citroen's part would have been approved. This might seem like a small difference but there's a big difference in intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by macksrallye
Very true. Although I feel the Ford case is different I do feel Ford could potentially appeal the difference in penalties but I think the fact that by that time Citroen will probably legally be running this different part yet Ford won't be running those thinner windows will speak volumes about the differences in the offences. But, if Citroen were then given an additional 5 minute penalty I could understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by macksrallye
P.S Thanks for being reasonable about this :up:
Where have I denied this? :rolleyes: Stop acting as if I've said Citroen's penalty is unjust and that they did nothing wrong. I may have seemed a bit loopy before but it's you who is clearly bonkers now! I never said anything of the sort and if you continue with this I'll report your trolling to an admin because this isn't the first time in this thread I've explicitly said that I agree that Citroen has done something wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by smokin'joe
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by ST205GT4
I think Ford deserve a harsher penalty for the fact that their part was both unhomologated and in direct contravention of the regulations which stipulate that it must be at least 3.5mm thick (AFAIK) whereas Citroen's part was just unhomologated. The kangaroo court lawyers in here would have you believe that Citroen deliberately did this with absolutely no reasonable explanation as to why they'd do this. As I said above if Citroen were given 5 minute penalties I could have understood that as well.
Thanks also for being reasonable :)
Also just as some technical background here's a picture of a distant cousin of the offending part.
http://rdpshop.com/images/P/PSP-SUS-110%202.jpg
The anti-rollbar is the red bit and the black bit connecting it to the suspension arm is the end link or drop link as it is sometimes called. From what has been said this is the part of the suspension that Citroen modified but didn't homologate.
Circumvent the rules? For what purpose? That's the bit which you've failed to establish. There's no doubt that Citroen have broken the rules. But tell me why any experienced team like Citroen would go out of their way to run a part which they could have just homologated but didn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by sollitt
Is it so difficult to understand that someone could just have screwed up? How often have we heard about a faulty batch of components in the WRC which have resulted in numerous retirements for top teams? if a trusted supplier can screw up a bunch of parts then why can the person in charge of homologation - who one can only assume is walking like John Wayne right about now - not overlook a revision to the droplink and neglect to get it homologated? We are dealing with humans and if your fellow countryman Joe is not able to understand that I think Citroen DID do something wrong then is it not possible that it was overlooked?
Can you see the part in this?
Could you email me a proper copy? :) Would be easier that way, will send you my email address via PM :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelopard
Or this?
If I'm not very much mistaken (and I probably am) the ARB link is the thing on the right hand side of the photo which goes from left to right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelopard
Yes you have identified the item in question, now consider that this link has been lengthened this would then reduce the twisting effect on the anti roll bar which means that you now have a softer bar setting than was origionally designed which means that you have more side to side weight transfer onto the outside wheels in any corner which will aid turn in and your ability to hold a line on tighter corners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
So, the modification was performance enhancing, at the very least any time penalty should have placed them behind all the legal WRC cars that finished the event. Personal opinion is that they should have been excluded from the results
While my views of the cars were limited to what I saw on TV I felt that the cars in question were running quite soft spring and roll bar rates coupled with quite hard shock absorber settings. Friends who were over the ditch viewing the event are of the same opinion