The first paragraph of your post answered the question you asked at the bottom so eloquently, it doesn't need any further explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
The defence rests it's case.
Printable View
The first paragraph of your post answered the question you asked at the bottom so eloquently, it doesn't need any further explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
The defence rests it's case.
you bait the hook, cast the line, wait 1/2 an hour and whooooooshhhhhhhh!! :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
so, taking the pointless definitive legal arguement aside and resorting to LOGICAL DEDUCTION, how would you answer the question.
Logic, Mr Spock. when you've argued the legalities to the nth degree, we are left with the blindingly obvious answer. it was illegal so they changed it.
why is it so impossible to accept the logical answer? nobody is calling for them to be penalised because it was the first race and lots of teams try to pull a fast one. we know it was illegal, the FIA know it was illegal and I suspect you know it was illegal as well but you got away with it. no big deal, just admit it.
There's the major fault in your logic........Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
Such things as illegality are defined solely in legal terms.
What surprises me is that someone involved in motor-racing such as your good self doesn't realise that logical deduction as defined by yourself is irrelevant.
I've worked in motor sport for 20 odd years and not once have I witnessed the scrutineers disqualify something because of 'logical deduction'.
They only disqualify when they can prove beyond doubt that a car is illegal.
TQuote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
he FIA said clarified the rule, to say the floor, would be included within the definition of movable aero devices, and by now clearly including it, would be illegal...In the absence of clarification, it is impossible to argue that the floor clearly fell within this definiton and the car had passed inspection.........
So what...
Mac is quilty because they not only used the information but failed to disclose the source. The only reasonable explanation is they did not disclose the source was to leave open the door for future little bits of info popping up, because one does not burn a rat where they have future hopes of some more "news"
Mac is also quilty because when the 700 pages showed up, Mac told MC to hide it, burn, shred it, but whatever you do, DONT leave any clues on our computers and copiers....Now if MC were to read this document, understand what it meant, and have a little tea and discussion later about just how does ferrari calibrate and use their wind tunnels, what amount of rear downforce calculations on thos Bridgestone tires...
If MAc had simply said to the FIA, here is this email and here is the 708 page document, makes certain statements and we do not know what to make of it exactly......looks like there is a rat infestation at Ferrari, may be they need to get a barnyard cat....
BTW--this is not speculation about changing facts, this is how one proves the state of mind of an actor--did he know what he was doing was wrong, and these actions of MAC prove exactly that
But some folks have been drinking thie kool aid, and now, you need to start chewing on your hat......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian McC
Does a pair of them count http://www.motorsportforums.com/foru...d.php?t=120419
If so you best get to chewing...oh I forgot, following RD ethical practices, plausible denial, and where not available, implausible denial, and if that don't work then appeal.....
tamburelloQuote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
we are a world away from scrutineering on this forum, aren't we? this is a discussion forum, isn't it?
we are not talking about disqualifying the Ferrari because of a breach of the sporting or technical regulation but merely looking at what we believe the facts to be in this case and drawing logical conclusions. let us not put elements of grandour upon ourselves but look at what the reality probably was otherwise what is the point?
we know that McLaren submitted a design allegedly from stepney as claimed by Couglan for clarification.
we know that if used, such a design would be illegal.
we assume that the design was similar to the questioned part on the Ferrari although it could have been a complete red herring from Nigel which, in the light of this whole debarcle, seems a very remote possibility.
because Ferrari removed the part directly after the clarification, it is logical to assume that the part was infact similar to the design submitted by McLaren and, as submitted in a written statement from the FIA, strictly prohibited under the rules then and now.
if you can give me a logical alternative why they removed it, then we can discuss it but it is most likely that this was the chain of events, is it not.
legal be damned, this is just basic common sense as applied in a friendly discussion on a forum. we have no legal juristriction and have only the information as detailed.
so, in that case, give me your opinion of what happened if it differs from mine but I suspect it doesn't, does it?
oh, you kill me :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
now, isn't there a train line your supposed to be playing on :p :
Why would he make reference to Ferrari? He was responding directly to a request for clarification from McLaren, a request that made no mention of Ferrari, or the Ferrari floor.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
McLaren's letter to the FIA said:
Whiting's response:Quote:
"We would like to consider the installation of a mechanism on the front of our floor, consisting of springs and pivots. By a suitable arrangement and configuration of the springs (rates and preloads) within this mechanism, we will be able to control the flexibility of the bib so as to meet the requirements of the test specified in Article 3.17.4, but to otherwise allow greater flexibility at higher loads by a non-linear characteristic."
The basis of McLaren's clarification request may have been information provided by a Ferrari employee, something that the FIA were not made aware of at the time. However, the absence of the name 'Ferrari' in Whiting's response does not alter the fact that the mechanism, as outlined in McLaren's letter was ruled as strictly prohibited by the FIA's technical regulations.Quote:
"Quite clearly, any such device would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations."
For pure sake of argument, let us all assume that the device was totally and completely illegal, with no question about the fact that it met the testing requirements, and some day some way, FIA was going to figure it all outQuote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Changes nothing in terms of how the information was acquired and the secret manner of acquisition, and indeed, the manner of presentation was so contrived by presenting the ferrari design as though it were something that MAC was going to do, but it was NOT CLEAR to Mac as to whether the design could be used or not, demonstrates again the clear intent to benefit from a leak, and not only benefit from that leak but to keep it so that any future leaks could come into MAC's door as well, by not burning the informant
And if it were so clearly illegal, then Mac should have protested, but instead chose the more devious route, of presenting this "new design" as though MAc was considering it
So anyone's opinion that since it met the test regarding load, then it was not per se illegal, as a moving aero device, but once clarified as being still "strictly prohibited", if it moves the car upward, regardless of whether it meets the exact test so specified....it now is illegal for future use...or whether is was ALWAYS ILLEGAL.... changes nothing as far as the benefit received and the manner in which the information was acquired and used (ie to protect the source for future use...)
Setting aside ethical issues and the fact that the source leaked out, it was a brilliant move by MAc, but then things went awry