FIA slams Hill and explains what and why they do

Printable View

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

16th November 2007, 10:40
SGWilko

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

5). 2 x blocked Kimi's hot laps in qualifying in Brazil

Firstly, in response to your original post below (now edited I assume) -

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

Hope you're fine! :p :

I am thanks. Fat ar5e = soft landing!!! :p :

Turning to the first quote above, and being generally a little more serious.....

I think Ferrari already did the blocking thing last year with FA. It was then stated by the FIA that this will be looked at differently in the future.

Don't start the kettle and pot thing........... ;)
16th November 2007, 10:51
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Firstly, in response to your original post below (now edited I assume) -

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Yep, I wanted a more lighthearted approach, like yours! ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Turning to the first quote above, and being generally a little more serious.....

I think Ferrari already did the blocking thing last year with FA. It was then stated by the FIA that this will be looked at differently in the future.

Yeah I saw that they still punished some people this season for the same offense but chose not to look at it when Hamilton was involved! :rolleyes:
16th November 2007, 11:33
SGWilko

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Firstly, in response to your original post below (now edited I assume) -

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Yep, I wanted a more lighthearted approach, like yours! ;)

Yeah I saw that they still punished some people this season for the same offense but chose not to look at it when Hamilton was involved! :rolleyes:

Well, that tells us one thing, the rules are very inconsistent. Why can't someone take a stand and get a clarificati.......

Oh, wait. Someone is......

Thank goodness. A drop of common sense in a season of madness.

;)
16th November 2007, 12:28
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

Well, If everyone would have been disqualified for the slightest mistake than LH has maybe the longest list of DQ's waiting for him:

1). floor in OZ (Max said that McLaren were also concerned by the flexing floor problem in Oz so according to some around here the floors of several teams were illegal, not my view though)
2). put back on the track by a crane in Nurburgring
3). disregarded the SC car rules in very difficult condition at Fuji
4). used more wet weather tires than allowed by the rules in Brazil
5). 2 x blocked Kimi's hot laps in qualifying in Brazil

That's 18 points by my calculations.

Let's see how many you can find for Kimi! Than you do the maths and see who had more points.

I just remembered one more for Lewis:

6) McLaren run a new lightweight gearbox in Hungary without submitting it first to be crash tested by the FIA

That makes it 28 points less for Hamilton. Doesn't look good at all!
16th November 2007, 14:56
passmeatissue

Quote:

Originally Posted by GP-M3

Hmmm... your posts have been fairly logical, I guess we can overlook one clearly wrong one! :)

Still logical, Captain, see posts 43 and 64 :)
16th November 2007, 15:12
passmeatissue

A note to say it's worth keeping an eye on earlier posts, because some of the more logical posts do quickly 'disappear' up the thread when hypocritical members, who pretend it is other people who don't debate properly, quickly post replies to other posts to avoid acknowledging them or letting them develop the real argument. So you may not see the logical posts referred to at all, if such a member(s) is on the ball. And sometimes such members seem to be on 24/7.

That's why I posted the summary, but I agree it's not that convincing on its own.
16th November 2007, 20:57
wmcot

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Are you kidding? Your actually serious about that! How much did Kimi win the WDC by?

If Kimi had lost his points in the first race, and the McLarens moved up the standings, who would be WDC now?

And how many points was Lewis leading by going into China? 17. If he had kept that lead, Kimi's 10 points from Australia wouldn't have mattered at all. He choked twice and lost a 17 point lead! Yes, I am serious! Losing 17 points was far more detrimental to LH's championship than Kimi winning 10. Do the math!
17th November 2007, 09:48
SGWilko

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmcot

And how many points was Lewis leading by going into China? 17. If he had kept that lead, Kimi's 10 points from Australia wouldn't have mattered at all. He choked twice and lost a 17 point lead! Yes, I am serious! Losing 17 points was far more detrimental to LH's championship than Kimi winning 10. Do the math!

If the fact that IF Ferrari HAD been disqualified from Oz Lewis or Nando had become world champion, then I think it is wrong to say it has far less to do with the championship.

We KNOW LH lost 17 points in the last two races, that is fact, and I can manage the mathematics of it thanks.

The point I made was that you were wrong to dismiss the potential effect of the floor (legal or not) issue.
17th November 2007, 10:39
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGWilko

We KNOW LH lost 17 points in the last two races, that is fact, and I can manage the mathematics of it thanks.

No, no, he lost 18 points in the last 2 races! :p :
19th November 2007, 10:49
SGWilko

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

No, no, he lost 18 points in the last 2 races! :p :

My mistake, my fingers types what I was thinking, not what I was meaning.

I meant he lost his 17 point lead.

Doh. ;)
20th November 2007, 08:21
wmcot

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGWilko

The point I made was that you were wrong to dismiss the potential effect of the floor (legal or not) issue.

So what exactly are the "potential effects?"
20th November 2007, 09:06
SGWilko

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmcot

So what exactly are the "potential effects?"

Well, what do think they might be?

Errr, ummm, if Ferrari HAD (potentially) been disqualified for the floor, thats 10 points Kimi's lost already.

Did he win the WDC by 10 points?
20th November 2007, 09:40
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Well, what do think they might be?

Errr, ummm, if Ferrari HAD (potentially) been disqualified for the floor, thats 10 points Kimi's lost already.

Did he win the WDC by 10 points?

But McLaren's floor had to be changed too!
And they run an illegally fitted light gearbox in Hungary!

So, who would have won it in the end? ;)
20th November 2007, 09:47
SGWilko

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

But McLaren's floor had to be changed too!
And they run an illegally fitted light gearbox in Hungary!

So, who would have won it in the end? ;)

Look, I appreciate that, but I was referring to specific comment, on a specific subject, and what affect that might have on the championship.

If the comment had included the McLaren, that that would be relevant, but it didn't, it wasn't and so I didn't refer to it.
20th November 2007, 12:14
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Look, I appreciate that, but I was referring to specific comment, on a specific subject, and what affect that might have on the championship.

If the comment had included the McLaren, that that would be relevant, but it didn't, it wasn't and so I didn't refer to it.

The championship is over a whole season and it should be seen as a whole.

While I appreciate your try to comment specific subjects, and how that would appreciate the final outcome, I think that it is not correct to overlook all the other factors involved in the matter.
It is completely irrelevant to talk about one fact that would have an influence on the final outcome while discarding all the other factors.
21st November 2007, 07:58
wmcot

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Well, what do think they might be?

Errr, ummm, if Ferrari HAD (potentially) been disqualified for the floor, thats 10 points Kimi's lost already.

Did he win the WDC by 10 points?

As Ioan pointed out, McLaren were running a similar floor. If Ferrari had been disqualified, I assume McLaren (and Red Bull) would have been, also. The results would be the same.

The point is that if Lewis had managed 2 additional points from China or Brazil, nobody would care about the floors at Melbourne!
21st November 2007, 08:33
F1boat

The floors were perfectly legal in Melbourne. Kimi is champion. End of story.
21st November 2007, 17:19
passmeatissue

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1boat

The floors were perfectly legal in Melbourne. Kimi is champion. End of story.

Charlie Whiting said the floor was clearly illegal.
21st November 2007, 18:05
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

Charlie Whiting said the floor was clearly illegal.

Why don't you just appeal to the FIA COA and give us all a break with your broken record?
You could show them all the "evidence" you have about those "illegal" floors! :s :rolleyes:
21st November 2007, 18:06
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

Charlie Whiting said the floor was clearly illegal.

Why don't you just appeal to the FIA COA ( I bet Ron would support your idea) and give us all a break with your broken record?
You could show them all the "evidence" you have about those "illegal" floors! :s :rolleyes:
21st November 2007, 19:20
passmeatissue

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

Why don't you just appeal to the FIA COA and give us all a break with your broken record?
You could show them all the "evidence" you have about those "illegal" floors! :s :rolleyes:

Are you denying that he said that?
21st November 2007, 21:36
Firstgear

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmcot

As Ioan pointed out, McLaren were running a similar floor. If Ferrari had been disqualified, I assume McLaren (and Red Bull) would have been, also. The results would be the same.

Not that it matters, but your statement that the results would be the same is incorrect. Kimi would have lost 10 points, the others would have lost less.
22nd November 2007, 02:09
wmcot

Quote:

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

Charlie Whiting said the floor was clearly illegal.

So do a lot of people on this forum, but that doesn't change anything, either. They also seem to forget that if Ferrari was "illegal" then so were McLaren and RedBull!

We're just swapping opinions back and forth like a ping-pong match.
22nd November 2007, 03:02
wmcot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firstgear

Not that it matters, but your statement that the results would be the same is incorrect. Kimi would have lost 10 points, the others would have lost less.

You are technically correct with the point totals, but I was just pointing out that everyone points to the Ferrari floor and ignores the McLaren and RedBull floors which would also be "illegal" according to the strict interpretation of the rules.
22nd November 2007, 06:34
janneppi

Well, if you can give any details what the other floors were like, those can be discussed, sofar there has been details only of the Ferrari floor.
BTW, didn't f1.com suggest that BMW were running a similar setup too, one with some sort of elastomers as springs?
22nd November 2007, 09:50
passmeatissue

Quote:

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

"All cars have a form of stay holding the front of the floor in place, but rivals noticed an unusually complex arrangement on the Ferrari when the bodywork was off the car in the Melbourne pit garage.
"

Also the likely answer to why they were allowed to run...

Ron is quoted as saying...

"“There is a whole range of things that come to light in the first race and you go and you say what is legal, and what is not legal. Most teams are given that current race to enjoy the benefit of the doubt. I think there will be a rationalization of some aspects of some cars that would close the gap if no one did anything."

http://www.totalf1.com/view-article.php?newsid=197806

McLaren apparently used a "pre-buckled stay", which seemed rigid in the paddock but yielded at a certain threshold speed on the track.

So you are right wmcot, there were several illegal floors. I have a suspicion that the Ferrari floor could not have been modified to pass scrutineering for the race, while the RB and Macca's could, by just reinforcing their stays. But no evidence. I hadn't heard about BMW's polymer one.

But quite a sudden trend to the idea, wasn't it? Makes you wonder if a few emails circulated about the concept... ;)
22nd November 2007, 10:01
passmeatissue

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmcot

So do a lot of people on this forum, but that doesn't change anything, either. They also seem to forget that if Ferrari was "illegal" then so were McLaren and RedBull!

We're just swapping opinions back and forth like a ping-pong match.

Well I was really just contesting another member's assertion that the floor could not be discussed because it was unarguably legal. My view is like janeppi's, that the way forward is to introduce more information.

For those who don't want to discuss it anymore, fair enough, just don't post about it :p .
22nd November 2007, 10:11
leopard

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmcot

We're just swapping opinions back and forth like a ping-pong match.

The hardest part of playing ping-pong is when you do smashing out of the table and ask your opponent to pick up the ball himself back and forth. :p :

btw Jannepi came with useful solution, especially about Peters town :)
28th November 2007, 08:44
wmcot

Quote:

Originally Posted by passmeatissue

Well I was really just contesting another member's assertion that the floor could not be discussed because it was unarguably legal. My view is like janeppi's, that the way forward is to introduce more information.

For those who don't want to discuss it anymore, fair enough, just don't post about it :p .

I enjoy finding out more info on F1 cars. I wish there was more of it on this forum. The problem is that all threads seem to head toward endless bashing of one form or other. I would love to learn more about the McLaren and Red Bull floors as well as many more technical details as to what makes an F1 car work!
28th November 2007, 10:34
SGWilko

Quote:

Originally Posted by janneppi

Well, if you can give any details what the other floors were like, those can be discussed, sofar there has been details only of the Ferrari floor.
BTW, didn't f1.com suggest that BMW were running a similar setup too, one with some sort of elastomers as springs?

It seems to me that the more restrictive you make the rules, the more exotic the solutions will be employed to gain an advantage.
29th November 2007, 07:58
wmcot

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGWilko

It seems to me that the more restrictive you make the rules, the more exotic the solutions will be employed to gain an advantage.

Most definitely!

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

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:05.