FIA sends spy case to Court of Appeal

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

15th August 2007, 12:32
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

no I dont.

lets take a speeding car then.

the law (rules) say you cannot speed over 30 in a 30 zone. the current test is a static camera or mobile units. if you do over 30, are you breaking the rules? Yes or No?

so, to stop people exploiting this loophole, ie speeding when there is no test in place, the testing procedure is changed so that a GPS system is fitted in every car to monitor if you speed.

the rule is still the same. you get penalty points and a fine if you speed but just the way you are tested has been altered to stop people getting away with it.

see what I mean?

No I don't! :D :p :

I mean how do you know that someone was speeding before you change the testing procedure?

No offence but your arguments are getting dumber and dumber with every post. :\
15th August 2007, 12:43
Flat.tyres

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

No I don't! :D :p :

I mean how do you know that someone was speeding before you change the testing procedure?

No offence but your arguments are getting dumber and dumber with every post. :\

my arguement is watertight. you havent explained why, if the device was legal, they changed it and suffered a performance drop.

thats because you cant without admitting it was, as the FIA said, strictly prohibited under the rules.

No offence, but your steadfast denial to accept black and white, incontrvertible proof, makes you look unreasonable :p :
15th August 2007, 12:45
Flat.tyres

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

If it's about Ferrari than even white is black for some people! :D

totally agree. please see last post :D
15th August 2007, 13:44
Bagwan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

76let 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 ;)

As it happens , I think your example is pretty good .
If a student is found with , say , 780 pages of unbound text , it isn't a book .
Therefore , if the rules state that you can't bring books in , the principal should be obligated to rewrite the rules stating that no books or unbound paper is allowed into the exam room .
Certainly , in the case of the school , we might see the student forced to re-take the exam , but this is F1 , where the letter is followed .

Just as the fiddle brake was clarified as an element used for steering the car , the sprung floor was shown to be more likely used for allowing the floor to flex up than keep it down .

Both were banned , with no retro-active punnishment .
15th August 2007, 14:12
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

my arguement is watertight. you havent explained why, if the device was legal, they changed it and suffered a performance drop.

thats because you cant without admitting it was, as the FIA said, strictly prohibited under the rules.

No offence, but your steadfast denial to accept black and white, incontrvertible proof, makes you look unreasonable :p :

Everyone but you is saying it was white and therefor legal still you won't take it! :rolleyes:
Even if your name was Ron Dennis it would have got in by now!
15th August 2007, 14:35
Flat.tyres

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bagwan

As it happens , I think your example is pretty good .
If a student is found with , say , 780 pages of unbound text , it isn't a book .
Therefore , if the rules state that you can't bring books in , the principal should be obligated to rewrite the rules stating that no books or unbound paper is allowed into the exam room .
Certainly , in the case of the school , we might see the student forced to re-take the exam , but this is F1 , where the letter is followed .

Just as the fiddle brake was clarified as an element used for steering the car , the sprung floor was shown to be more likely used for allowing the floor to flex up than keep it down .

Both were banned , with no retro-active punnishment .

sorry, in an earlier post you asked me a question as to if I thought you werent being objective and I didnt respond. I did not imply that and am sorry if you thought I did. It was, at face value, a statement that you seem pretty objective.

if we want to talk about the pedal, it might be appropiate to take it to the History forum as I will need to do a bit of digging around and ask a few questions about the laws at the time and the ruleing. Im not dissagreeing with you but claiming ignorance of the facts.

however, back to this case :)
15th August 2007, 14:37
Flat.tyres

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

Everyone but you is saying it was white and therefor legal still you won't take it! :rolleyes:
Even if your name was Ron Dennis it would have got in by now!

please can you back up that everyone was legal apart from me.

Ron Dennis said it was illegal. Charlie Whiting said if there was a device such as this it would be illegal and Ferrari changed the design of their car to remove it.

however, you and some Ferrari fans claim it was legal. :p :
15th August 2007, 15:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

Charlie Whiting said if there was a device such as this it would be illegal and Ferrari changed the design of their car to remove it.

however, you and some Ferrari fans claim it was legal. :p :

Show me where Charlie Whiting names the Ferrari device as the one he is talking about?

The quote you've given refers to Mclaren's request for clarification about a design they submitted. Ferrari were not mentioned in that quote.

By that fact alone, Charlie Whiting has made no reference to the Ferrari floor fitted at Melbourne. Therefore the Ferrari floor was legal and passed the required tests at the time.

The only way you can claim that the Charlie Whiting quote you have given is relevant to Ferrari is if the Mclaren design was an exact copy of the Ferrari one....which, if that were the case, would hole the 'Mclaren Are innocent' campaign well below the water-line.
15th August 2007, 15:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

Ron Dennis said it was illegal.

Oh well, must be true then.

You seriously expect us to believe that if Ron Dennis knew the Ferrari was illegal he would not of protested it?
15th August 2007, 17:04
Bagwan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

sorry, in an earlier post you asked me a question as to if I thought you werent being objective and I didnt respond. I did not imply that and am sorry if you thought I did. It was, at face value, a statement that you seem pretty objective.

if we want to talk about the pedal, it might be appropiate to take it to the History forum as I will need to do a bit of digging around and ask a few questions about the laws at the time and the ruleing. Im not dissagreeing with you but claiming ignorance of the facts.

however, back to this case :)

That 3rd pedal was photographed by a journalist , and investigated by the FIA as a result .
The reason for the pedal was to brake the inside wheel , aiding steering into the corner . As such , it was clearly against the rules , but not strictly prohibitted by them , and therefore the rules were re-written to outlaw such practice .
No retro-active punishment was issued , as , despite it's being against the spirit of the rules , it was not stated clearly as illegal .

There were people just as upset then as now , but , simply , it was and is the only fair way to look at it .

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page