What's so bizarre about bringing last year car, and devices, to testing early in the testing season? I'd assume they were looking to have a comparative base line. Sounds reasonable and very sensible to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Printable View
What's so bizarre about bringing last year car, and devices, to testing early in the testing season? I'd assume they were looking to have a comparative base line. Sounds reasonable and very sensible to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
It seems to me that they wasted track time doing that, and their current form is a proof to that! :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by jjanicke
So how do you measure progress if you have nothing to base it on?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Renault hadn't driven on Bridgestone’s yet; they didn't have the R27 available for testing, and needed to start understanding the new tires.
Makes sense to me to test with an existing car, the new tires to develop a baseline to judge the new car against when it hits the tracks.
They either had the option to not test and wait for the R27, or start work on understanding the Bridgestone’s, with their existing R26, and it's devices that they understand very well.
From that story:Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
"The FIA has modified its bodywork tests to ensure a floor mounting system used primarily by Ferrari does not circumvent the regulations."
In which case McLaren were fully justified in raising the issue with the FIA. As Ron Dennis said "there is a whole range of things that come to light in the first race" after the teams have spent the winter designing and developing new cars.
I am wondering. If Ferrari has to remove the device for Sepang race. They clearly had an illegal device in Melbourne, and should therefore be penalized for using it? Should they not?
No, because it was not illegal to the rules as they were defined for Australia. (in actuality is was deemed legal against the testing procedures that were defined and inplace for Australia 2007).Quote:
Originally Posted by 93VTEC
Just like Renault wasn't penalized for using the, subsequently banned, mass-dampers earlier in the 2006 season.
I would argue that RD is fully justified in raising all the issue's he continually gets critized for on our board.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
But people need someone to point their fingers at and blame.
OK Maybe not stripped of the points, but they can be considered to have cheated ignoring the spirit of the sport and the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by jjanicke
Well that's the fine line of F1. Is it cheating or pushing the rules to their limit? Personally I believe this to be an incident related to pushing the rules to and beyond the limit, hence the clarification.Quote:
Originally Posted by 93VTEC
Now if you were asking about tire ovens and the sort, I'd say that's plainly cheating.
Fia should come up with a new rule. That would go somehting like. If your car uses a device, or part that is later found to be outside of the rules, you will be penalized by .... and then slap a fine, points whatever. Make it clear that using devices, that are clearly against the spirit of the rules, will be punishable. Perhaps then the teams will shy away from such devices.
Great idea......if you want to drain F1 of any creativity.Quote:
Originally Posted by 93VTEC
So in your opinion, Ferrari and all the teams that were using 2006-spec front and rear wings were also wasting time on winter testing? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Let it be clear that mass dampers can also be used to measure the dynamic characteristics of a dynamic system, in this case suspension, chassis and tyres, and since only the last ones have changed (and AFAIK the construction it's the same but the compound is different), the mass-damper could be used to see which structural and aerodynamic characteristics would be required to obtain the same "attitude" of the car under braking and on the curves.
As for the floor, I guess if the floor was flexing under load, under 50 mm from the pavement I guess they were cheating, but unfortunately there's no way to prove that, so the FIA is right to change the measurement rules as they did when the tyre width scandal ran up and down the paddock in 2003. The rules have been clarified and will prevent that the spirit of the rule itself can be upheld.
Furthermore, the rules stand to level the field within a range of creativity, it is that range where engineers work, either taking it to the limit or "flexing" it. If the rules are strict and clear in every aspect of the car, there would be point in holding a Constructor's Championship.
That would be interest: the "objetive" determination of "clearly against the spirit of the rules". By definition, the "spirit" of the rules is not written, because otherwise it would be just "the rules". You cannot penalize for breaking "the spirit" of the rules. It just doesn't make sense. If the rules say that something is forbidden, then it is forbidden; otherwise, it is allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by 93VTEC
I wonder why "autosport" is the only site, who has written this. And it'll be even more interesting if Ferrari are found not guilthy and their innovation does not break the book of the rules.
There was an article on f1live.com stating that McLaren protested 3 different Ferrari parts but the FIA cleared them all, I think I already posted a link in the "whiners" thread!Quote:
Originally Posted by F1boat
Here it is: http://www.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlin...27100350.shtml
Sorry, but I couldn't find where in this article is written your statement about FIA clearing anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
It's maybe the phrase?: "It is understood that Whiting, the FIA's technical delegate, declared the F2007 legal."
If it's this one, should be referring to an ancient past, as all we (should) know already Whiting has sent a letter to all teams informing them that detailed checks will be carried out on cars' underbodies during scrutineering on the Thursday of the upcoming Malaysian Grand Prix, and this tests will proceed with all devices (springs) removed.
So this phrase can't be the one where is stated "FIA cleared them all".
But I'm still looking for it; I'm sure it has to be written somewhere on this article, as you always back up what you post.
Well "declared legal the F2007" = "cleared them all" unless for some reason you don't accept it.Quote:
Originally Posted by andreag
For what it concerns it is about the fact that the FIA declared that bodywork legal for last race. They clearly could not clear it for the next race as they did not check yet the cars for the Malaysian GP.
As for the tests with all devices removed I can see plenty of team having troubles in their way as they all use some kind of device for their floors, not only Ferrari and BMW.
And I'm still looking to find what on earth is making you deliver personal attacks on me? Did I offend you in any way?Quote:
Originally Posted by andreag
The FIA have generally been leniant on Ferrari, so I wouldn't be surprised if they get away with anything. However if it's legal, then Ferrari shouldn't be punished - that goes without saying - they've outsmarted everyone....again! However if it's a 50/50 decision, you can bet your house that the FIA will sway towards Ferrari's 50!
What did Honda have a couple of years back that was bordering illegal? And was later banned? Or McLaren's 3rd pedal. Or Renaults damper system? Or Michelin? Now lets look at decisions which have gone against Ferrari...
The worst was when Ferrari had illegal cars in Malaysia 99. Points were docked from the drivers AND the team. Fair enough. However Ferrari appealed and it was later decided, only the team should have points taken away from them, as the drivers were not responsible, and it was out of their hands! If that was the case, why has every previous illegal car penalised the driver and the team? And since then, whenever the car has been found illegal, the driver too has always been punished, whether he could have prevented it or not. It seems like it was a one off decision in favour of Ferrari. The worst bit is McLaren had the same situation with DC 2 races after (though in a new season), where he was disqualified from 2nd place, even thought the car was legal to start the race, but ended up illegal (the floor board had rubbed off against the bumps). McLaren put in the same arguement as Ferrari, accepting the team should be punished, but not DC - the FIA said no.
As for expecting Ioan to back up everything he says, I think is slightly inaccurate from my experiences. Maybe it's time Ioan changed his sig to something a bit more truthful :)
This isn't true there were other cases when the constructors points were lost but the driver kept his points, I wish I could tell you from the top of my head those occasions, but I remember this happened at least to Hakkinen once (maybe someone has a better memory than I and can clear this).Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
Glad you put that in Ioan. Thats Mclaren's way of definately getting such a system banned......Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
That's clear after all it's easier and cheaper to get something banned than to develop one for yourself too.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Just their way of doing it is, like always, let's say a bit hypocrite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Austria 2000. McLaren was stripped of the 10 points but MH kept the win.
I knew I can count on one of the best around here! :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
My memory isn't the same anymore. :\
Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Yeah, my goog... I mean, memory, is really good ;) :p :
A Michael Schumacher fan calling McLaren's hypocrites is quite funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Is being hypocritical in your view a bad thing concerning F1 matters?
That aside, good work on the McLaren and Mika race. I had completely forgotten! Why was the car illegal, was it a seal or something?
Obviously if the FIA are to make the favouritism equal between McLaren and Ferrari, McLaren will have a rosy future for a good few decades :P
Yeah, a seal on the ECU was missing.Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
What a riot :DQuote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
So a clear aero dynamic rules violation with 10mm wider bargeboards vs. a missing seal. Even after investigating the FIA admitted they thought the seal fell of due to the vibrations of the race car. Quite different to a 10mm wider aerodynamic device.. I would say.
Ioan even though you never claimed so, you aren't comparing apples to apples.
I say raphael123s FIA-Ferrari favouritism claims still stand true!
If that is the case, did the McLaren car start the race off as legal then?
I know that was the case in Brazil with DC, where he and the team lost their points!
In Malaysia, the cars were illegal from start to finish, they were designed illegal. Still, the drivers kept their points.
You can't blame Ferrari for the FIA favouritising them I guess (unless they paying them money or whatever - HIGHLY UNLIKELY!), but you shouldn't deny it either.
Well a tweaked ECU might give some serious advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by jjanicke
Link please!Quote:
Originally Posted by jjanicke
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Now, some of us Ferrari fans can remember the Scuderia lobbying the FIA to ban Active Suspension back in 1993.
The Scuderia argued that such systems were in danger of creating a spending war which would harm the overall competitiveness of Formula One.
Of course, the fact that the F93A was an absolute pig of a chassis that handled like a shopping trolley had nothing to do with it*
*I'm a Ferrari fan.....I'm duty bound to say that. OK, I don't believe it, but it's in the small-print of a Tifosi contract that I have to say it.
Ah but tamburello my friend, was not the Scuderia ultimately proven to be correct? Active suspension was later banned as a blight on the spirit of the sport.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
I believe you are referring to page 3, clause 1.2, paragraph 4 of the Tifosi: Articles of Admission 1947 document which states "Thou shalt not refer to anything from the Marque of Maranello as a tractor, truck, shopping tolley or any other vehicular mode of transport that is either slow, cumbersome or both."
It was of this clause that Alain Prost fell foul in 1991.
As it turns out this was not the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns02597.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Thanks! :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by jjanicke
I liked this part mostly:
<<...and because of exceptional circumstances of this case only deduct the points awarded to the car in the constructors' championship.>>
For what it's worth that the FIA only favors Ferrari! ;)
So who things that the movable floors will be banned? I wouldn´t bet on it. It could be possible though... when Ferrari has a confortable lead.
So who thinks that the movable floors will be banned? I wouldn´t bet on it. It could be possible though... when Ferrari has a confortable lead.
Exceptional circumstances in this case being that only one out of two seals was broken...Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Thus only half of the winning package kept it's points?Quote:
Originally Posted by DonJippo
Don't make me laugh. FIA and F1 is no kindergarten.
They just wanted MH to keep in touch in the championship.
Actually, Ioan, I got the feeling that the FIA were looking at a bigger picture than just the 2000 World Championship.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
They had been 'understanding' with Ferrari in Sepang the previous year, so anything other than being 'understanding' with Mclaren in Austria would have been tantamount to favouritism.
By acting the way the FIA did, they could show that they favoured no-one.
Of course, there are those who refuse to see it that way, but that's how it looked to me.
If only they had had the same scale in Malaysia... then Mclaren would have won the WCC too... maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Good point. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
You're right:Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by eu