Fuel issue- No penalty for BMW/Williams- McLaren to appeal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

It's called sportsmanship.

---

oooooooh ok...I C...seems we have a different view on the meaning of sportsmanship than !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Back to the fuel...

In 1983, the fuel samples taken from the Brabham-BMW's of Nelson Piquet & Riccardo Patrese at the title-deciding South African GP were found to be above the specified octane-rating.

Nelson Piquet had just snatched the title from Alain Prost and the Renault team by 2 points, Prost having had a lead of 12 points with 4 races to go.

Renault, who could have appealed and would probably have won the appeal (speculation, but at the time FISA had a French president not known for his anglophile sympathies and at war with Brabhams owner...one Mr Ecclestone, no less).

Renault decided not to appeal, on the basis that they did not want to win the title in the courts.

---

Interesting... Never heard about that before. :up:

Though to balance this:

In the 1986 World Rally Championship, Lancia's Markku Alen had won the driver's title after the Peugeot 206's were controversially DQ'd from the San Remo rally after the Italian stewards ruled that the Peugeot's underbody fins were side skirts, which were banned, despite no such scrutineering problems on the same body panel for the other events before the rally. This brought into question the fact that Lancia was an Italian team that was behind in the championship on Italian home soil. Peugeot's initial appeal failed, and they were DQ'd before the rally finished, meaning they could score no points regardless.

However, apon appeal to FISA some weeks after the seasons' end and Alen was already crowned champion, Peugeot won. No points were awarded for anyone for the San Remo rally, and Peugeot's Juha Kankkunen was crowned champion after the title had been decided in court. Which I suppose was also questionable as FISA's president was also pretty nationalistic.

But there's one title (be it not in F1) that hasn't gone down as shameful (I don't think?) due to its outcome being decided in court.

tamburello's example is extremely pertinent. There are limits to how far these things ought to be taken. As I said earlier, it is largely McLaren's fault that Hamilton wasn't in the position to win the title without requiring 'help' like this, because of the car's technical problems. For them to appeal in this case is an act of some desperation.

Malllen — the Peugeots that were disqualified from the San Remo rally in 1986 were 205s, not 206s. That was an absurd situation with an utterly unfair outcome, and it ended a horrible year for world rallying which was far worse than F1's year has been in 2007, because people died. Unless Italy reintroduces the death penalty specifically for Nigel Stepney, that's not going to be the case as a result of all that's gone on recently in F1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Malllen — the Peugeots that were disqualified from the San Remo rally in 1986 were 205s, not 206s.

---

Ah bugger it, that's what I meant. But still, Peugeot weren't shamed for it as far as I can tell (from the trusty internet) :D .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

tamburello's example is extremely pertinent. There are limits to how far these things ought to be taken. As I said earlier, it is largely McLaren's fault that Hamilton wasn't in the position to win the title without requiring 'help' like this, because of the car's technical problems. For them to appeal in this case is an act of some desperation.

---

Actually it wasn't a team related technical problem, more like driver related.

However their 3 stops strategy didn't help things a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Actually it wasn't a team related technical problem, more like driver related.

However their 3 stops strategy didn't help things a bit.

---

Did he cause the problem that forced him to slow and drop to the back of the field, then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Did he cause the problem that forced him to slow and drop to the back of the field, then?

---

As posted before he admitted to pressing a button that caused that issue ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

the Peugeots that were disqualified from the San Remo rally in 1986 were 205s, not 206s. That was an absurd situation with an utterly unfair outcome, and it ended a horrible year for world rallying which was far worse than F1's year has been in 2007, because people died.

---

I seem to remember some Minis being D/Q's from the Monte because they had the wrong coloured headlight bulbs or something, and some French car won as a result.

Why are we giving suggestions of how it might go on appeal when they have stated that they do not have proper evidence to find them in breach of the regulation ?
You can't appeal a decision that wasn't made .

I mean , it's interesting and all , but kind of irrelevent when you figure they couldn't show them to be breaking the rule .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Why are we giving suggestions of how it might go on appeal when they have stated that they do not have proper evidence to find them in breach of the regulation ?

---

In McLaren world everything is possible, since they managed to escape a 2 years ban they believe to have more rights than anyone else.

Rony boy those 100.000.000 dollars were a fine not a buy out of the FIA!