FIA sends spy case to Court of Appeal

Printable View

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

21st August 2007, 08:27
ArrowsFA1

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinchote

Ok, and can you explain then how the cars passed several layers of scrutineering at Australia?

Because it took Whiting a week to rule on the matter. There was no protest in Australia, just a request for clarification, which is why (I assume) there was never a chance of the race results being changed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmcot

But not until the method of testing was changed.

Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations was applied by Charlie Whiting in direct response to the content of McLaren's letter, which was given to the FIA at the Australian GP. Whiting gave his ruling a week later. The floor test was changed after Whiting had ruled that "...any such device [as outlined in McLaren's letter] would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations".

As the information contained in McLaren's letter was based on details of Ferrari's floor provided by a Ferrari employee, it can be argued that Ferrari's floor was found to be in breach of Article 3.15, therefore "illegal" in F1 terms.

That is why Ron Dennis used the term "illegal" when he said "Were it not for Mr Stepney drawing this illegal device to the attention of McLaren, and McLaren drawing it to the attention of the FIA, there is every reason to suppose that Ferrari would have continued to race with an illegal car."

Now, as Ferrari were never penalised, and the Australian GP results stood, it can also be argued that Ferrari's floor was legal at the time it was raced, therefore not illegal in F1 terms.

Simple :crazy: :p
21st August 2007, 10:15
Flat.tyres

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmcot

But not until the method of testing was changed.

I fail to understand how obviously intelligent people fail to grasp the basics of legality or illegality.

the FIA said such a device would be illegal. period!

they did not change the rules to make it illegal but introduced a different testing procedure to pick up on teams using the device when they shouldn't.

lets take Murder. If you murdered someone 20 years ago but didn't get caught, is it still illegal?

now, with the advent of DNA evidence, you are identified and tried, how far do you think your defence will get you with the defence that DNA evidence wasn't used 20 years ago so it wasnt illegal. all the way to the Gallows is my guess :D
21st August 2007, 13:00
SGWilko

Christ on a bike....

You Tommy Truckers will argue till the cows come home!

Flexing floors - all materials, to some degree will flex. Some a lot, some a little, and some not very much at all. So, some degree of telerance is allowed for in the rules to cater for this natural flexing.

However, what seems very clear to me is, that the Ferrari floor solution was created in a way to flex only within the stated tolerance allowed during the specific load tests in scrutineering, but at higher loads (those experienced at speed) the floor flexed in excess of this stated tolerance providing an aero benefit, and is therefore illegal. It is illegal, because it is flexing in excess of that permitted.

Now, I think we can probably all agree that testing this at racing speed is a little tricky, poor Charlie certainly can't run THAT fast.......

So, Charlie, realising that things must be corrected, the load test is changed, and a greater load is applied to the floor. The rule regarding floor flex allowance is the same, just the testing methodology is changed.

So, while applying the same rules, but in a way that better recreates 'racing at speed load conditions' the Ferrari (and others) floor will flex in excess of the stated tolerance.

So, is it still legal?

It WAS illegal, but the test at the time was inadequate to highlight the bahaviour, so it was 'overlooked'

It is almost a half empty/half full scenario. You are never going to agree, so just let it go.
21st August 2007, 13:38
janneppi

Sorry to disturb the delightful little chit chat. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure it has been mentioned already and quite frankly don't care to look more than three pages behind.

There was a story on a Finnish news site that the panel of judges in Stepney gate is being revied, there are 18 judges in the big list.
No Germans, Italians, Brits or spaniards allowed, so apparently judges will be:
Robert Winghe, Belgium
Pierre Torrigny, Canada
Philippe Narmino, Monaco
Macedo Cunho, portugal
David Miles, australia
21st August 2007, 13:50
ArrowsFA1

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGWilko

You Tommy Truckers will argue till the cows come home!

:laugh:

Why is it so important to establish that Ferrari's floor was legal in the context of "Stepneygate"? Perhaps because the alternative is unpalatable for those looking to establish McLaren's guilt, and it undermines the accusations that have been made against McLaren since the beginning of July.

Whatever, Ferrari have said they will fully explain their position on the entire matter at the appeal. Perhaps the 13th September will finally see evidence of the many accusations being made. The press will be there so full details are expected.
21st August 2007, 14:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

I fail to understand how obviously intelligent people fail to grasp the basics of legality or illegality.

Christ on a bike! Now that has to be the most priceless comment on this thread.

You are the one who fails to understand the issue of legality and illegality.

You are the one who cannot comprehend that by passing the original test, the FIA were satisfied that the floor conformed to the regulations. Et voila, the floor was deemed legal by the Governing Authority.

The FIA, being the governing authority, are the sole arbitors of what passes scrutineering and the tests to prove legality. It is not you nor Ron Dennis nor anybody else, it is the FIA. They said legal in Melbourne, that's the final word.

That, my dear child, is why the floor was legal and why no protests were made.

One moment you are saying 'legal be damned' and the next claiming knowledge of legality/illegality? The inconsistent argument you have put forward is nothing short of being a joke.

I would pay money to see you take on a case in the justice system...You'd be laughed out of court.
21st August 2007, 14:11
SGWilko

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamburello

Christ on a bike!

It's environmentally friendly, you see....... :D
21st August 2007, 14:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

:laugh:

Why is it so important to establish that Ferrari's floor was legal in the context of "Stepneygate"? Perhaps because the alternative is unpalatable for those looking to establish McLaren's guilt, and it undermines the accusations that have been made against McLaren since the beginning of July.

Well, the FIA estabilished for themselves that the floor was legal. It is only those who cannot accept that who argue anything else.

As for the legality of the Ferrari floor, as decided by the FIA, having any effect on estabilishing Mclaren's guilt since July....may I please remind you that Mclaren have been found guilty already by the FIA.

Those of us who you suspect of accusing Mclaren are not accusing at all, merely acknowledging the verdict.

It is the punishment we're not convinced of.
21st August 2007, 15:36

[quote="Flat.tyres"]lets take Murder. If you murdered someone 20 years ago but didn't get caught, is it still illegal?

now, with the advent of DNA evidence, you are identified and tried, how far do you think your defence will get you with the defence that DNA evidence wasn't used 20 years ago so it wasnt illegal. all the way to the Gallows is my guess[quote="Flat.tyres"]

Once again, you are giving misleading information and, once again, your legal knowledge let's you down.

The Ferrari floor is not comparable to your Murder scenario, for one simple but legally resolute reason....

They have, in effect, already been judged by the Governing Body.

It should be noted that under the EU legal constitution, a defendant can plead 'Autrefois acquit', the definition of which is "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State".

More commonly this is known as Double Jeopardy.

Having been passed as legal by the FIA stewards, who are invested with the authority of the FIA just in the same way as a Judge is invested with the powers of the legal system, Ferrari have already been cleared.

This occurred at Melbourne.

Since the tests were changed at Malaysia and both Ferrari's found to be in compliance with the new regulations, there is no new evidence to be had.

This is were you DNA scenario collapses....there is no evidence.

Therefore, any later accusations of Illegality have already been considered and rejected.

So, now that your misleading and unknowledgable argument has been revealed as such, the real situation is that Ferrari simply can plead 'Autrefois acquit' and your argument is legally dead.

Since your argument is legally dead, it serves no purpose.....Unless you do not recognise the Governing Body, which doesn't help your argument at all anyway, because funnily enough, the last two people I can recall who did not recognise a governing body were Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic.

Now, I'm sure you don't want to be considered in that kind of company?
21st August 2007, 15:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

I fail to understand how obviously intelligent people fail to grasp the basics of legality or illegality.

the FIA said such a device would be illegal. period!

they did not change the rules to make it illegal but introduced a different testing procedure to pick up on teams using the device when they shouldn't.

lets take Murder. If you murdered someone 20 years ago but didn't get caught, is it still illegal?

now, with the advent of DNA evidence, you are identified and tried, how far do you think your defence will get you with the defence that DNA evidence wasn't used 20 years ago so it wasnt illegal. all the way to the Gallows is my guess :D

All the way to the gallows?

My dear boy, I would draw you're attention to the case of Derek Bentley, who was posthumously pardoned.

Not exactly a fine example for your idea of justice.

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