FIA sends spy case to Court of Appeal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

:laugh: Im the last person to complain about grammer. Mine is terrible :laugh:

---

Also your spelling, judging by that sentence! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

They should have said "Thank you but we advise you to go straight to Max with this info".

---

With the benefit of hindsight, given all the circumstantial accusations made in the light of the email being sent, McLaren might agree. But, whether they advised the sender of the email to do what you suggest, or did what they did, makes little or no difference.

Either way McLaren did approach the FIA with the information, and action was taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

The floor was not illegal. Come back when you get this point right, it's really getting boring to explain it to you again and again (and I see that others tried to explain it to you extensively for some time too) :rolleyes:

---

The legality or otherwise of the floor is debateable. What is not in question is the fact that, having looked at the floor, the FIA took action to close a loophole in the regulations which affected all teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

The floor was not illegal. Come back when you get this point right, it's really getting boring to explain it to you again and again (and I see that others tried to explain it to you extensively for some time too) :rolleyes:

---

you keep saying it and I keep failing to understand it.

what we are talking about it a device mounted on springs which moves under loading to give a beneficial aerodynamic impact. Right or Wrong?

then answer the following regulations, particulaly the last one and answer me

1. How did the Ferrari conform with these regulations?

2. Why did they not get penalised?



1.4 Bodywork:
All entirely sprung parts of the car in contact with the external air
stream, except cameras and the parts definitely associated with the
mechanical functioning of the engine, transmission and running gear.
Airboxes, radiators and engine exhausts are considered to be part of
the bodywork.

2.4 Compliance with the regulations:
Automobiles must comply with these regulations in their entirety at
all times during an Event.
Should a competitor feel that any aspect of these regulations is
unclear, clarification may be sought from the FIA Formula One
Technical Department.

3.12.7 No bodywork more than 150mm from the car centre line,
which is visible from beneath the car and which lies between the rear
wheel centre line and a point 330mm forward of it may be more than
125mm above the reference plane. Any intersection of the surfaces
in this area with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form
one continuous line which is visible from beneath the car.
Additionally, any bodywork in this area must produce uniform, solid,
hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the
body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances.

3.15 Aerodynamic influence:
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used
in the pit lane) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific
part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:
- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly
secured means not having any degree of freedom).
- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap
between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited
under all circumstances.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the
bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may
under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

now, again I say it, the sprung bodywork, that moved under loading to increase the performance of the Ferrari, was ILLEGAL.

Ive proved where I think it is so perhaps you can prove where it isnt?

All the FIA have done is change the tests to pick up on this cheating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveA

Also your spelling, judging by that sentence! ;)

---

no complaints from me on that one either fella :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

you keep saying it and I keep failing to understand it.

what we are talking about it a device mounted on springs which moves under loading to give a beneficial aerodynamic impact. Right or Wrong?

then answer the following regulations, particulaly the last one and answer me

1. How did the Ferrari conform with these regulations?

2. Why did they not get penalised?



1.4 Bodywork:
All entirely sprung parts of the car in contact with the external air
stream, except cameras and the parts definitely associated with the
mechanical functioning of the engine, transmission and running gear.
Airboxes, radiators and engine exhausts are considered to be part of
the bodywork.

2.4 Compliance with the regulations:
Automobiles must comply with these regulations in their entirety at
all times during an Event.
Should a competitor feel that any aspect of these regulations is
unclear, clarification may be sought from the FIA Formula One
Technical Department.

3.12.7 No bodywork more than 150mm from the car centre line,
which is visible from beneath the car and which lies between the rear
wheel centre line and a point 330mm forward of it may be more than
125mm above the reference plane. Any intersection of the surfaces
in this area with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form
one continuous line which is visible from beneath the car.
Additionally, any bodywork in this area must produce uniform, solid,
hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the
body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances.

3.15 Aerodynamic influence:
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used
in the pit lane) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific
part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:
- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly
secured means not having any degree of freedom).
- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap
between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited
under all circumstances.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the
bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may
under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

now, again I say it, the sprung bodywork, that moved under loading to increase the performance of the Ferrari, was ILLEGAL.

Ive proved where I think it is so perhaps you can prove where it isnt?

All the FIA have done is change the tests to pick up on this cheating.

---

The text you posted with bold letter contradicts your claim of illegality. :laugh:
So if you still don't get it right why do you reply? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

With the benefit of hindsight, given all the circumstantial accusations made in the light of the email being sent, McLaren might agree. But, whether they advised the sender of the email to do what you suggest, or did what they did, makes little or no difference.

---

Benefit of hindsight?! You mean that if Ferrari wouldn't have found out than it would have been all rosy and correct?
Ron took the wrong decision at that moment, they shouldn't have accepted the info coming from Stepney. But they did it! Because they wanted to win at all costs! Who says they didn't persuade Stepney to send them the 780 pages afterwards? Maybe they blackmailed him using his previous email about the Ferrari floor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

The legality or otherwise of the floor is debateable. What is not in question is the fact that, having looked at the floor, the FIA took action to close a loophole in the regulations which affected all teams.

---

You contradict yourself there, if there was a loophole in the regs than the floor could not be illegal before they chose to close the loophole! :p :

BTW what's your opinion about Ron lying to the stewards and bringing the sport into disrepute?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

The text you posted with bold letter contradicts your claim of illegality.

---

Could you explain exactly how it contradicts the claim of illegality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Benefit of hindsight?! You mean that if Ferrari wouldn't have found out than it would have been all rosy and correct?

---

No, that's not what I meant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Who says they didn't persuade Stepney to send them the 780 pages afterwards? Maybe they blackmailed him using his previous email about the Ferrari floor?

---

That's exactly the kind of circumstantial accusation I was referring to!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

You contradict yourself there, if there was a loophole in the regs than the floor could not be illegal before they chose to close the loophole!

---

A loophole is a means or opportunity of evading a rule. Ferrari took the opportunity to evade the intention of the existing rule. That's why I say it is debateable whether Ferrari's floor was illegal or not. Having received information about the floor the FIA acted to close the loophole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

The legality or otherwise of the floor is debateable. What is not in question is the fact that, having looked at the floor, the FIA took action to close a loophole in the regulations which affected all teams.

---

The device was not illegal in Melbourne , but became so before the second race .
There is no debate about this . Had they been illegal in Oz , Ferrari and others would have been sanctioned .

And , to state that it "affected all teams" implies that perhaps McLaren had to change as well . As I understand it , McLaren did not have to change .


What would have happened if Coughlan had received the info from Stepney and said "Oh , yeah , we use one of those , too." ?
I would suggest that they would have kept quiet .

But , it leads me to wonder how Nigel knew that McLaren weren't , when apparently others in the pit lane were .
Did Newey at the bulls have one on his car(s) ?


This move to ask for clarification messed with more than just Ferrari .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

...to state that it "affected all teams" implies that perhaps McLaren had to change as well . As I understand it , McLaren did not have to change.

---

This is what I based my "affected all teams" comment on:

Quote:

---

The tougher movable floor tests introduced by the FIA for the Spanish Grand Prix will force every team to make changes to their designs...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

The device was not illegal in Melbourne , but became so before the second race .
There is no debate about this . Had they been illegal in Oz , Ferrari and others would have been sanctioned .

And , to state that it "affected all teams" implies that perhaps McLaren had to change as well . As I understand it , McLaren did not have to change .


What would have happened if Coughlan had received the info from Stepney and said "Oh , yeah , we use one of those , too." ?
I would suggest that they would have kept quiet .

But , it leads me to wonder how Nigel knew that McLaren weren't , when apparently others in the pit lane were .
Did Newey at the bulls have one on his car(s) ?


This move to ask for clarification messed with more than just Ferrari .

---

Bagwan

your generally quite objective.

would you say that its possible that the Ferrari (and others) floor was illegal but that it wasnt showing up in the tests.

McLaren asked for clarification subsequent and the loophole (testing process) was changed but for the good of the sport, no retrospective action was taken? surely widespread sanctions up and down the pitlane would be destructive, wouldn't it?

not to McLaren of course as if they had of complained rather than request clarification, the FIA would have been forced to view this differently.

which begs the question of why Ron took the softly, softly approach rather than go for the jugular. He could have done either and still not dropped Stepney in it.

what do you think?