FIA sends spy case to Court of Appeal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

What you are refusing to say is more interesting after having said that the FIA did not hear Ferrari's argument.

---

The original hearing had Coughlan's affadavit, given to the FIA by Ferrari.

That is not the same as being allowed to ask direct questions to the accused.

The original hearing was simply concerned with the charge facing Mclaren and was not concerned with legal arguments from Ferrari, hence why we now have a new appeal hearing.

May I suggest that, having read the small print in your employment contract, you might find it useful to proceed to a library and read a few books on basic law?

You might find it extremely enlightening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

It is only whistle-blowing if it is sent to the correct and relevant authorities.

Contacting the opposition with information from your company is not whistle-blowing, it is a criminal act.

You better check the small print of your own employment contract.

I find it incredulous that a knowledgable man doesn't know that.

---

Have you ever been involved in any form of whistleblowing process?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Firstly, the Mclaren 4th pedal situation is not immaterial. It is cut from the same cloth as the Ferrari floor.

Both were an attempt to circumnavigate the regulations. One (Mclaren) fell foul of an existing rule, whereas the Ferrari floor needed an amendment to the regulations for it to be deemed illegal.

The Ferrari floor, like the Renault Mass-damper last year, passed the FIA prescribed test procedure at Melbourne, much in the same way that the Michelin tyres passed the test procedure in Hungary in 2003.

By the time of Malaysia, when the regulations and the prescribed testing procedure had been revised, it would have been illegal.........but it was no longer on the car.

As has been said before, if you are within the regulations, you are not committing an act of illegality.

If you believe that Ferrari were illegal in Melbourne, then by the same logic you have to accuse Renault of illegality in 2006 and all Michelin runners, including the saintly Mclarens, of being illegal pre-Italian GP in 2003.

But I don't expect for one minute your blinkers could allow your own logic to bring about the downfall of your argument.

And, just for the record, I don't believe that Renault were illegal nor that the Michelin runners in 2003 were illegal. They were smart, that's all.

---

OK, lets look at the MDS. I dont think it should have been made illegal and I do not agree with the twin hull explanation that the FIA gave. I think it was a genuine innovation that should have been left for that season and any decision made then.

after refreshing my memory, the brake pedal can be viewed in a similar light to the moveable floor. although I maintain that it was an innovation that allowed McLaren to brake at parts where they get a steering advantage, it can be constrewed as an aid to turn the car. I see this as quite innovative though and not a deliberate way to get around the testing process.

Michelin though was quite similar in that they used the testing method to produce a tyre that did not conform to either the rules or the spirit of the rules. this is the same as Ferrari and a deliberate effort to circumvent a specific rule. I think it has probably been dealt with appropiatly by the FIA in that neither Michelin or Ferrari were punished but they both were being very cheeky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

OK, lets look at the MDS. I dont think it should have been made illegal and I do not agree with the twin hull explanation that the FIA gave. I think it was a genuine innovation that should have been left for that season and any decision made then.

after refreshing my memory, the brake pedal can be viewed in a similar light to the moveable floor. although I maintain that it was an innovation that allowed McLaren to brake at parts where they get a steering advantage, it can be constrewed as an aid to turn the car. I see this as quite innovative though and not a deliberate way to get around the testing process.

Michelin though was quite similar in that they used the testing method to produce a tyre that did not conform to either the rules or the spirit of the rules. this is the same as Ferrari and a deliberate effort to circumvent a specific rule. I think it has probably been dealt with appropiatly by the FIA in that neither Michelin or Ferrari were punished but they both were being very cheeky.

---

The other similar case involved Jordan's anti-stall system in 1999. In that instance, Jordan asked the FIA for clarification and it was ruled illegal. Nowadays, this would cause an enormous stink, calls for their points to be revoked, and so on ad nauseam.

speaking of appeals, McLaren have pressed ahead with the appeal for constructors points

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

OK, lets look at the MDS. I dont think it should have been made illegal and I do not agree with the twin hull explanation that the FIA gave. I think it was a genuine innovation that should have been left for that season and any decision made then.

after refreshing my memory, the brake pedal can be viewed in a similar light to the moveable floor. although I maintain that it was an innovation that allowed McLaren to brake at parts where they get a steering advantage, it can be constrewed as an aid to turn the car. I see this as quite innovative though and not a deliberate way to get around the testing process.

Michelin though was quite similar in that they used the testing method to produce a tyre that did not conform to either the rules or the spirit of the rules. this is the same as Ferrari and a deliberate effort to circumvent a specific rule. I think it has probably been dealt with appropiatly by the FIA in that neither Michelin or Ferrari were punished but they both were being very cheeky.

---

That's a little more balanced :up: but still not quite. The rules at the time (and still today) say that the steering of the car can only be done with the steering wheel. So what McLaren was doing was openly illegal.

McLaren's third pedal was in violation of this rule:

Quote:

---

11.1.2 The brake system must be designed in order that the force
exerted on the brake pads within each circuit are the same at all
times.

---

On the other hand, there is no description of the floor in the regulations: you won't find a statement like "the floor has to be flat". All the bodywork regulations are given in terms of measurements. If your car satisfies the measurements, it is legal. Just to show you how RD lies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Whistleblower does not = criminal. One of the central tennants of whistleblowing is confidentiality.

---

For the last time (hopefully) on this thread - CHECK YOUR DICTIONARY FOR THE DEFINITIONS OF WHISTLEBLOWER VS. SPY!

A whistleblower reports wrongdoing to the proper legal authorities.

A spy gives confidential information to competitors.

Simple enough?

If Stepney was a "whistleblower" he would have gone to the FIA or the stewards at a GP. Since he emailed his technical information to McLaren, he is a spy.

Not that hard to see the difference unless RD prescribed your eyeglasses!

One more clarification of Ferrari's "illegal flexible floor":

All F1 floor flex - they would snap into bits if they didn't (same goes for airplane wings.)

At Melbourne, the flex of Ferrari's floor was measured according to the rules at the time and was found to be within the acceptable range.

After Melbourne, through a "subtle hint" from McLaren (via Stepney) the measurement of a floor's flexibility was changed. ALL cars complied with this new measurement by Malaysia.

Ferrari would have cheated if their floor at Malaysia (and after) did not meet the new standards.

Am I being too simple?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Have you ever been involved in any form of whistleblowing process?

---

No, but if I find the need to do so, I know the proper authorities to go to!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

All Ferrari are going to succeed in achieving if McLaren are punished is embarrasing the FIA. They are basically telling the FIA they are not doing their job properly.

---

About time somebody told them!!! There have been so many rulings or non-rulings made by the FIA (including for or against Ferrari) that they don't even seem to have a shred of common sense in the whole organization. As far as racing is concerned, the FIA seem more interested in maintaining public image and the flow of money into Bernie's pockets than the good of racing.