FIA sends spy case to Court of Appeal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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:

---

please justify that comment as to why it contradicts the illegality of the Ferrari? :confused:

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.

---

not strictly true Arrows. the FIA have already said that such a device would be illegal.

Quote:

---

In his letter, which also contained a diagram of McLaren's plans, Lowe wrote: "We would like to consider the installation of a mechanism on the front of our floor, consisting of springs and pivots.
http://www.autosport.com/images/upload/1174997867.gif"By a suitable arrangement and configuration of the springs (rates and preloads) within this mechanism, we will be able to control the flexibility of the bib so as to meet the requirements of the test specified in Article 3.17.4, but to otherwise allow greater flexibility at higher loads by a non-linear characteristic."
Lowe's letter was clearly aimed at clarifying whether or not the use of such a device was deemed legal if its sole intention was to get around the FIA's flexibility tests.
A week later, FIA technical delegate Charlie Whiting responded to McLaren, and in a letter also distributed to every other team, he clarified the allowed usage of such a device - and revealed that bodywork testing would be altered accordingly.
Whiting wrote: "The test described in Article 3.17.4 is intended to test the flexibility of bodywork in that area, not the resistance of a device fitted for the purpose of allowing the bodywork to move further once the maximum test load is exceeded.
"Quite clearly, any such device would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations.
"We have no objection to a device in this area which is fitted to prevent the bodywork from moving downwards, provided it is clear that it is not designed to circumvent the test described in Article 3.17.4.
"Therefore, with immediate effect, we will be testing bodywork in the relevant area with any such devices removed."

---

now, correct me if Im wrong but if Ferrari were using a device that allowed them to permit flexibility, then according to Charlie, it would be prohibited. l;ast time I checked, that made it illegal otherwise Ferrari wouldn't have changed it. :confused:

now ioan, explain just where Charlie and I are confusing the rules :laugh:

sorry, forgot to include the reference which is the ever reliable and referencable http://www.autosport.com

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57650

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

Bagwan

[your generally quite objective.]

So , you're implying I'm not being objective now ?

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

Had it been illegal , there simply would not have been a need for clarification .

[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.]

Had the Ferrari been found illegal , whether through a protest or request for clarification , they would have had to take action .
Having requested a clarification , rather than protest , McLaren did not risk the cost of losing the protest .
Perhaps they knew that Ferrari had an interpretation of the rules that allowed it , and therefore knew they would lose .

[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.]

Ron spoke "softly , softly" about a red herring .

what do you think?

---

I try to be objective .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

not strictly true Arrows. the FIA have already said that such a device would be illegal.

now, correct me if Im wrong but if Ferrari were using a device that allowed them to permit flexibility, then according to Charlie, it would be prohibited. last time I checked, that made it illegal otherwise Ferrari wouldn't have changed it. :confused:

now ioan, explain just where Charlie and I are confusing the rules :laugh:

---

I'll correct you....and perhaps this line from the statement you quoted might help......

"We have no objection to a device in this area which is fitted to prevent the bodywork from moving downwards, provided it is clear that it is not designed to circumvent the test described in Article 3.17.4."

Is it clear that the spring was designed to circumvent the test?

Considering that your beloved Mclaren had information on the device, but still only asked for clarification and not a direct protest, would it not be fair to say that it was not clear and definable that the purpose of the device was to circumvent the rule?

Since Mclaren knew all about it but chose not to protest, methinks there is a very good case to say it wasn't clear.

Unless, heavens forbid, your man Ron made a mistake?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

please justify that comment as to why it contradicts the illegality of the Ferrari? :confused:

---

The floor had passed all the test and complied with all the points of the regs you were quoting! :rolleyes:
It was so obvious! :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

I'll correct you....and perhaps this line from the statement you quoted might help......

"We have no objection to a device in this area which is fitted to prevent the bodywork from moving downwards, provided it is clear that it is not designed to circumvent the test described in Article 3.17.4."

Is it clear that the spring was designed to circumvent the test?

Considering that your beloved Mclaren had information on the device, but still only asked for clarification and not a direct protest, would it not be fair to say that it was not clear and definable that the purpose of the device was to circumvent the rule?

Since Mclaren knew all about it but chose not to protest, methinks there is a very good case to say it wasn't clear.

Unless, heavens forbid, your man Ron made a mistake?

---

look, lets not beat around the bush on this.

McLaren had a design and copied it to the FIA for clarification in which they asked if it was legal.

The FIA wrote

Quote:

---

"The test described in Article 3.17.4 is intended to test the flexibility of bodywork in that area, not the resistance of a device fitted for the purpose of allowing the bodywork to move further once the maximum test load is exceeded.
"Quite clearly, any such device would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations.

---

the design, supplioed by a Ferrari employee, was designed to permit flexibility and was therefore strictly prohibited by the FIA.

if Ferraris design functioned differently in any way to the one supplied by McLaren then why the f*ck did they change it.

face it, Ferrari had a sprung floor that was strictly prohibited and because McLaren asked for clarification, the FIA altered the way the floor was tested to stop the cheat.

you caqnnot argue against the facts in this one because the FIA are saying that such a device is illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

The floor had passed all the test and complied with all the points of the regs you were quoting! :rolleyes:
It was so obvious! :p :

---

well, I didn't quote the tests so lets leave that out of it.

if the floor complied with the regs, then Ferrari would still be using it, wouldn't they?

so, it didnt comply with the regs and as Charlie says, was strictly prohibited, therefor it was illegal and the testing procedures were changed to pick this up.

let me give you an example.

your sitting an exam, the moderator is looking the other way so you cop a look at a book you've sneaked in with the answer on. you dont get caught because you weren't seen.

are you guilty of cheating?

now, lets pretend one of your colleagues saw you and asked the principal if it was allowed to bring books in. The principle, realising that this pupil is suggesting someone else is, says no, it bloody well isn't allowed and I'm going to search pupils before exams in future.

see where Im going with this.

The car contraveyned the rules. it got away with it. the FIA decided to test differently to stop people breaking the rules and suddenly Ferrari change their design and are back at the same pace as the McLaren.

Mmmmmmmm ;)

At the next exam, the Ferrari student would bring in a magazine, and claim that technically, a magazine isn't a book so it's legal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

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

---

No it wasn't illegal.
If it had been illegal, THEN FIA had punished Ferrari.
That easy :)