FIA sends spy case to Court of Appeal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

I really dont see how people can argue without refuting the evidence with facts.

---

Fact 1 - The Ferrari F2007 was not excluded from the Australian GP as it complied with all the requirements of scrutineering and FIA regulation tests set down by the governing body at the time.

Fact 2 - Mclaren only asked for clarification of a regulation. They did not protest the legality of the F2007. See Fact 3

Fact 3- The device only became illegal after the FIA changed the way they measured flexibility. In the eyes of any justice system in the civilised world, until that point in time it was legal, hence no official protest of the Australian GP result by Mclaren.

Fact 4 - Ron Dennis later claimed the car was illegal, when it evidently was not as it abided with the regulations in place at the time. Therefore, Ron Dennis's statement is false.

Fact 4 - Mclaren gained information on the Ferrari spring design, which they then used as a basis for the own design to present to the FIA, from an unauthorised and illegal source.

Fact 5 - Charlie Whiting's comments are aimed solely in reply to Mclaren's proposed design which, as any lawyer would point out, was supplied along with a leading statement pointing out that the design was aimed at breaking the regulations. A leading statement is inadmissable in a court and would be struck from the record.

Fact 6 - Charlie Whiting makes no reference to Ferrari.

Those are facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

totally disagree.

using your example, the limit always has been and still is 35. the FIA have said that if anyone were to exceed that speed limit, it would be strictly prohibited and put in a measure to ensure people will get caught red handed if they drive over 35 in the future.

I think some people are argueing just for the hell of it. The facts are that the FIA said that such a device would be strictly prohibited if used and Ferrari changed it. end of story.

---

That's pure baloney.

The official authority would have to prove that the speed limit had been broken previously, which it could not do. No evidence of an illegal act could be brought to the attention of the court and the case would be instantly dismissed.

You are arguing emotionally and with a degree of logic, but not in the only terms that are relevant, which are legal ones.

The FIA said that such a device, if used, would be prohibited from the Malaysian GP onwards. That is a fact. However, they made no reference to the devices being used at the Australian GP as being illegal.

Using the FIA's statement post Australian GP as a 'fact' regarding the legality of the F2007 in Melbourne is not a fact.

That is a wholely misleading statement and is most definitely not a fact.

At the moment, you would be dismissed as an unrelaible witness or even of being in contempt of court.

I would strongly advise you to get a legal defence team and answer simply 'no comment' from now on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Isn't what Ferrari did the equivalent of developing and using a means to break the speed limit while fooling the measuring device into thinking they were driving within the limit? :dozey: :p

---

No. The difference is that in the speed limit case, you post the allowed speed, and then use a device to measure it. On the other hand, in F1 all body regulations are given in terms of measurements: there is no conceptual definition, and a separate measurement to see if the concept is respected.

In the particular case we are talking about, if you read all of the technical F1 regulations, you won't find the words "flat floor" on them.

It's beginning to be obvious that Flat.tyres and ArrowsFA1 are either trolling, immensely bored, or absolute worshippers of Ron Dennis who would sacrifice their first born to him if he asked (no, make that hinted.)

No matter how many arguments are placed before them, and no matter how things are simplified, they refuse to see things as they are.

McLaren have no further problem with the handling of Ferrari's floor.

The FIA have no further problem with the handling of Ferrari's floor.

No other F1 team has any problem with the handling of Ferrari's floor.

Only Flat.tyres and ArrowsFA1 seem to have a problem with Ferrari's floor as it existed 8 races ago. Time has moved on and left you two behind. Now I'll do the same. If I get bored, I'll come back in 2010 or 2011 and you will still be carrying on the same argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

It's beginning to be obvious that Flat.tyres and ArrowsFA1 are either trolling, immensely bored, or absolute worshippers of Ron Dennis who would sacrifice their first born to him if he asked (no, make that hinted.)

Only Flat.tyres and ArrowsFA1 seem to have a problem with Ferrari's floor as it existed 8 races ago. Time has moved on and left you two behind. Now I'll do the same. If I get bored, I'll come back in 2010 or 2011 and you will still be carrying on the same argument.

---

:laugh:

You should re-read my posts, but I agree with you that time has moved on. The issue of Ferrari's floor has been, gone, been dealt with. It's a non-issue. The only reason it's being argued over here ad nauseam is that it's a stick to beat McLaren with in the context of everything else that's going on.

Specifically, the argument is made that McLaren should have passed the information contained in the email concerning Ferrari's floor, sent (allegedly) by Stepney, to the FIA. They did, but they did so without revealing the source of the information.

From there, the argument goes, as McLaren used information provided by a Ferrari employee once then of course they would do the same again. So when Coughlan was found in possession of the 780-page document obviously McLaren looked at it, used it, and some say even built a Ferrari F2007 :laugh:

The eagerness with which some jump on circumstantial evidence and unfounded allegations, while making vitriolic personal attacks on Ron Dennis, is absurd.

I can certainly see why Ferrari object to their IP being in the possession of a McLaren employee, but they should be looking closer to home for how this whole situation started.

Roll on the 13th September :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

:laugh:


Specifically, the argument is made that McLaren should have passed the information contained in the email concerning Ferrari's floor, sent (allegedly) by Stepney, to the FIA. They did, but they did so without revealing the source of the information.

---

The hell they did. Do you just make this crap up assuming no one knows or is it a british thing where you all just repeat lies over and and over hoping they stick?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hendersen

The hell they did.

---

Oh really.

Quote:

---

The FIA has modified its bodywork tests to ensure a floor mounting system used primarily by Ferrari does not circumvent the regulations, autosport.com can reveal, after McLaren asked the governing body for a clarification over the matter.

---

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57650 - Tuesday, March 27th 2007

McLaren asked the governing body for a clarification over the matter means McLaren passed the information contained in the email concerning Ferrari's floor to the FIA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Oh really.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57650 - Tuesday, March 27th 2007

McLaren asked the governing body for a clarification over the matter means McLaren passed the information contained in the email concerning Ferrari's floor to the FIA.

---

Indeed. But by asking for a "clarification", they did not report that someone SENT them information from ferrari. They did not have to mention names, but they should have reported that someone was leaking such information. You know exactly why they would not have, because they are dirty cheats that didn't want to burn up any bridges, whether those bridges were illegal or not they thought they would never have to worry about. Now they do. Quit making it sound like they forwarded the email and deleted the name, which is what they should have done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

It's beginning to be obvious that Flat.tyres and ArrowsFA1 are either trolling, immensely bored, or absolute worshippers of Ron Dennis who would sacrifice their first born to him if he asked (no, make that hinted.)

---

I wont even bother answering such a childish statement when all Ive posted is facts.

Quote:

---

No matter how many arguments are placed before them, and no matter how things are simplified, they refuse to see things as they are.

McLaren have no further problem with the handling of Ferrari's floor.

The FIA have no further problem with the handling of Ferrari's floor.

No other F1 team has any problem with the handling of Ferrari's floor.

---

you are quite wrong. I had no further problem with the Ferrari floor once it was changed to comply with the rules as you say. i have never called for Ferrari to be penalised but merely pointed out that the Rules havent changed but a testing procedure has been modified to stop people breaking the rules.

I have no real problem with this, have you?

Quote:

---

Only Flat.tyres and ArrowsFA1 seem to have a problem with Ferrari's floor as it existed 8 races ago. Time has moved on and left you two behind. Now I'll do the same. If I get bored, I'll come back in 2010 or 2011 and you will still be carrying on the same argument.

---

time has most definatly moved on. This was a small matter that needed clarification after the first race as these things usually do. as Arrows says, without the further illegal activities of Stepney and Coghlan, this would have been a non event but now, people are trying to turn Mclaren into the bad guys for asking for clarification on a device that the FIA has stated would be illegal.

Does anyone deny any of this or can we move on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hendersen

Quit making it sound like they forwarded the email and deleted the name, which is what they should have done.

---

There's little or no difference between what you're saying McLaren should have done, and what they did do.