FIA sends spy case to Court of Appeal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

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.

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

---

EXACTLY!! This is F1 so all relevance only applies to F1. As you stated, it was "not illegal in F1 terms."

That's all we're talking about here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

:laugh:

Why is it so important to establish that Ferrari's floor was legal in the context of "Stepneygate"?

---

I don't see the flexible floor as having much to do with Stepneygate at all other than the way it may have been tipped off to McLaren by an inside spy.

How the FIA ruled or didn't rule or changed the rules about flexible floors doesn't have anything to do with Stepney.

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!

---

Then why wasn't Ferrari disqualified? period!

Quote:

---

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.

---

Don't the testing procedures determine whether a part of the car falls within the rules or not? The floor at Melbourne met the rules, hence it was legal.

Before Malaysia, the test requirements were changed requiring floors to meet new standards. The revised floor was also legal.

It's really simple.

Your murder comparison is not relevant because you are comparing judicial laws with F1 rules. One could go on arguing for days the dissimilarities between the two. Sporting rules are rarely as stringent as judicial laws, especially in F1 where rules are re-written and re-interpreted several times a season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

The FIA wouldn't accept that....they didn't with the issue of Mclaren benefitting from the dossier, may I remind you...

---

That's a significant point, and one worth remembering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

Sporting rules are rarely as stringent as judicial laws, especially in F1 where rules are re-written and re-interpreted several times a season.

---

tamburello has placed great emphasis on judicial laws and the judicial process, but they don't apply in the case being made against McLaren. The FIA, and the F1 regulations, do.

Of course Ferrari have turned to the judicial process where Coughlan and Stepney are concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

Then why wasn't Ferrari disqualified? period!

---

because the device was built in such a way that although it contravened the law, it complied with a testing procedure that was flawed.

whether it passed the test or not is irrelevant to the legality of the device. we all know that tests can be fudged.

what is relevant, as Tamburello rightly says, is that the car was passed after Australia. that is a fact and not disputed. it has no relevance on whether the car had an illegal device that the FIA clarified would be illegal. it only confirms that the device they had passed a test that the FIA accept is flawed and was changed to ensure the rules couldn't be broken in a similar way in the future.

at the end of the day, this is the simple reality and its not worth argueing it ad nausaum. I dont really care what people agree on here because I know, and the FIA knows, that a moveable device such as the one Ferrari were using was illegal and they were made to change it. OK, they had an unfair advantage in Aus but thats history and they weren't allowed to get away with it after there.

Quote:

---

Don't the testing procedures determine whether a part of the car falls within the rules or not? The floor at Melbourne met the rules, hence it was legal.

---

the testing procedures are supposed to ensure the rules are adhered to. there was an obvious flaw in the testing process in Australia which was fixed by Malaysia. Ferrari passed the testing procedure. we agree on that. personally, I think they were lucky because other teams have tried similar tricks and been nailed for it. ie Honda

Quote:

---

Before Malaysia, the test requirements were changed requiring floors to meet new standards. The revised floor was also legal.

It's really simple.

---

but the rules were the same so if the floor used in Aus complied to the rules, it would not have needed changing for Malaysia, would it.

Quote:

---

Your murder comparison is not relevant because you are comparing judicial laws with F1 rules. One could go on arguing for days the dissimilarities between the two. Sporting rules are rarely as stringent as judicial laws, especially in F1 where rules are re-written and re-interpreted several times a season.

---

agreed.

FIA laws and judicial laws are very different and the FIA are a lot more flexible about how they interperet their laws.

its really not going around in circles about. as I say, we all know they were naughty but they got away with it. the FIA would have been quite within their rights to impound the cars after Aus until this was resolved and a new test devised that ensured cars complied with the rules in which case, there would have been no dispute and the Ferraris would have been disqualified.

that didnt happen and nobody is calling for them to be penalised. it would be nice if people accept that what they were doing contravened the rules but complied with the testing procedures but if people cant accept that then thats their problem.

end of the road for this discussion I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

we all know they were naughty but they got away with it.

---

No, you think they were 'naughty'.

I, on the other hand, think they were smart.

There is no regulation forbidding smart thinking.

Since no punishment and no action was taken against Ferrari by the FIA, the latter judgement seems more appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

No, you think they were 'naughty'.

I, on the other hand, think they were smart.

There is no regulation forbidding smart thinking.

Since no punishment and no action was taken against Ferrari by the FIA, the latter judgement seems more appropriate.

---

so, on the one hand you get anally legal spouting rubbish till everyone is bored into submission and on the other hand you say they were smart implying they found a way to get around the testing proceedure which implies that they were breaking the rules :rolleyes:

dont bother answering, I'll lose the will to live if you come out with one of your pointless legal definitions again.

Roll on the the 13th September :s mokin:

In Before The Lock! :D

I'd say everything is pretty much covered as far as this thread is concerned.
Personal attacks, stupid comments, stubborness, general sillyness little substance.

It was fun guys, let's do this again after the FIA meeting. :rolleyes: