FIA sends spy case to Court of Appeal

Printable View

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

21st August 2007, 16:26
ArrowsFA1

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamburello

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

In the light of your opinion, and for the purposes of clarity, what exactly was the FIA's Charlie Whiting ruling on when he said that "...any such device would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations"?

I had understood that the information provided to the FIA by McLaren, upon which Whiting made his judgement, came from a Ferrari employee and detailed the way in which Ferrari's floor, as it appeared at the Australian GP, worked. Is that not correct?
21st August 2007, 17:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

In the light of your opinion, and for the purposes of clarity, what exactly was the FIA's Charlie Whiting ruling on when he said that "...any such device would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations"?

I had understood that the information provided to the FIA by McLaren, upon which Whiting made his judgement, came from a Ferrari employee and detailed the way in which Ferrari's floor, as it appeared at the Australian GP, worked. Is that not correct?

That would appear to be correct, but has no legal impact.

The clarification occurred after Melbourne, after the FIA (whose technical delegate is the very same Charlie Whiting you like to quote) had cleared the F2007's.

I really do suggest you try to understand the significance of 'Autrefois acquit', as it is the key to the issue of the legality of the Ferrari floor.

Therefore, using the legal basis of 'Autrefois acquit', Charlie Whiting's judgement on the Mclaren clarification is irrelevant to the case of the Ferrari's at Melbourne.

They were legally announced as being legal. Once that was done, all your wailing and gnashing of teeth is pointless.
21st August 2007, 17:44
Flat.tyres

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamburello

That would appear to be correct, but has no legal impact.

The clarification occurred after Melbourne, after the FIA (whose technical delegate is the very same Charlie Whiting you like to quote) had cleared the F2007's.

I really do suggest you try to understand the significance of 'Autrefois acquit', as it is the key to the issue of the legality of the Ferrari floor.

Therefore, using the legal basis of 'Autrefois acquit', Charlie Whiting's judgement on the Mclaren clarification is irrelevant to the case of the Ferrari's at Melbourne.

They were legally announced as being legal. Once that was done, all your wailing and gnashing of teeth is pointless.

so, it probably contravened the rules but they got off with it because it wasn't picked up. is that what your trying to say.

phewwww, thought we would never get there :D
21st August 2007, 17:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

so, it probably contravened the rules but they got off with it because it wasn't picked up. is that what your trying to say.

phewwww, thought we would never get there :D

I am not saying it contravened the rules. Far from it. I am stating the exact opposite.

Once it was passed by the scrutineers at the end of the Australian GP it was officially legal. It passed the only tests required to prove it's legality.

Charlie Whitings judgement was made after that, as was the change to the testing procedure,which makes it irrelevant.

I would love to here how you are going to argue against the decision of the regulatory body and against the common legal practice of 'Autrefois acquit' in a way that is relevant to the case in hand and does not rely on the pathetic non-legal and therefore non-relevant examples you've offered to date.

I won't hold my breath though, as previous form suggests I may have requested something beyond your abilities.
21st August 2007, 18:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

so, it probably contravened the rules but they got off with it because it wasn't picked up. is that what your trying to say.

You use the word 'Probably'.....and you seriously want to claim a victory when 'probably' has been shown countless times not to be good enough to make a conviction on.

If all you've got is 'probably' then I really would advise you give up.

The FIA wouldn't accept that....they didn't with the issue of Mclaren benefitting from the dossier, may I remind you...and neither do I.

Hard, undeniable facts are all that are worth discussing, and so far you have failed to bring any to the discussion.

And you claim other people are childish? Funny, because the level of your logic isn't exactly graduate level.
21st August 2007, 18:12
janneppi

I'd rather watch skantilly clad ladies instead of edit peoples posts, so let's not go to personal attacks, thanks.

Dare i suggest talking about my beautiful post #384 instead of going round and round the same bloody circle for another ten pages. :)
21st August 2007, 18:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

No Italians??????????? Honestly, if you can't nobble a jury nowadays then there really is no justice!
21st August 2007, 18:36
markabilly

Quote:

Originally Posted by janneppi

I'd rather watch skantilly clad ladies instead of edit peoples posts, so let's not go to personal attacks, thanks.

Dare i suggest talking about my beautiful post #384 instead of going round and round the same bloody circle for another ten pages. :)

Just put their (and mine) names on your ignore list button or whatever that thing is, and then you will not have to be bothered..... :D

And I was going to talk about about it, but I was afraid it would be "off-topic" and would just get me more penalty points or whatever.......... :eek:
21st August 2007, 19:11
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by markabilly

Just put their (and mine) names on your ignore list button or whatever that thing is, and then you will not have to be bothered..... :D

You see we also have an advantage on mods, we can have an ignore list, they can't! :D
21st August 2007, 19:18
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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,

Oh my, Ferrari invented a material that flexes more when subjected to higher loads! And I was living with the impression that this is something that happens with any material. \:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGWilko

and is therefore illegal. It is illegal, because it is flexing in excess of that permitted.

No it isn't illegal because it didn't flex in excess of what permitted by the rules when loaded with the loads specified in the rules. :rolleyes:

Common sense and a bit of physics are more than enough to understand it. Obviously the FIA have more of both than some members around here. :p :

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