Yeah but that was Citroen and FIA is Fre... hey wait! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ville
Petter got excluded last year, he were missing something like 3kg of muck in the wheel arches...
Printable View
Yeah but that was Citroen and FIA is Fre... hey wait! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ville
Petter got excluded last year, he were missing something like 3kg of muck in the wheel arches...
8 pages for WRC in GPWeek.. that was a good event :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by HarriK
Does it make a difference? In both cases the part was different in reality than in a document. Also in both cases team did not benefit from this.Quote:
Originally Posted by sollitt
Then Sweden 2012. Proton used lighter suspension arms than homologated. They got 2 minutes penalty and a severe reprimand.
Well you could benefit from having a stronger cluch in this event, ask Petter..
Re Mikko - I reckon this is the FIA trying to make it a competitive championship by helping the Fords after they made a total hash of capitalising on Loeb's demise.
Tiny differences in the clutch & turbo do not deserve disqualification.
Why need a homologation then? Of course it deserves some kind of penalize.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie WRC
Manufacture, not driverQuote:
Originally Posted by Rallyper
if he said such a thing i think it is not professional...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie WRC
Rules are there to be obeyed... It was in Citroens hands to be 100% legal and not to give the FIA any reason to doubt them...
The driver won in an illegal car, it has to be disqualified.Quote:
Originally Posted by uranium
I understand FIA has been a bit easy in some similar problems in the past but disqualification is the only way to go.
Conspiracy theory no. 1Quote:
Originally Posted by Janez
Conspiracy theory no. 2Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie WRC
Anyone better?
Novikov is now put up as the winner on WRC.com !
Probably a mistake, but still. and still no winner in Monte on the overview.
No matter how great the fault of the rule breach is, the rules are final. If the car doesn't comply 100% with them, then its illegal. Plain and simple.
I feel for Mikko, but thats the way it is.
Certainly adds to what has been an epic story for the whole event. The media and promoters would be loving it!
wrc.com is abit of a fail lol - I can never get videos to work on thereQuote:
Originally Posted by Sulland
Disappointing end to a disappointing rally. Ok, you have to be at the finish (legally) to score the points but Mads won't want to have taken a win in this way and in fact I didn't like it that the podium finishers were all setting times 1m30 off the pace either. Would have been nicer to see Mads push a bit harder and go for the win on the stages.
Feel really sorry for Mikko, he drove to an excellent win and now loses it through no fault of his own.
As for Citroen and their appeal, then it seems clear - an incorrect unhomologated clutch part is an illegal part, end of. Regarding the turbo I have two thoughts, that there were no special reasons why Portugal 2012 should affect a turbo more than any other event, and so if it was normal for blades to distort they this would have happened on other events but no other post-event scrutineering has shown any problems, and secondly if there are limits your engineeers should work to a margin that ensures that you always stop the right side of the measurement.
This shows again what a stupid situation we have got into with homologation - there are numerous previous examples of cars being exluded or penalised where there is no performance gain - Brynhildsen Fabia brakes RAC a couple of years ago, Petters slight weight issue last season, Patrick Flodins "old" wheels in the PWRC a couple of years ago, and Fords glass.......it is all too complicated and expensive to guarantee compliance.
Congratulations to Mads
WT
Print screen!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulland
The reason why for non-homologated part every competitor shall be disqualified is to stop discussion about the impact of the use of such part. If there is discussion allowed You get into the never ending spiral of opinions and explanations and into the battle of lawyers. The problem of last years was that FIA often changed the penalty to some lighter ones (like time penalty) for good of big factory teams but in the same time they kept same non-compromise stance against privateers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie WRC
I agree that sometimes the tolerances or details specified in homologation are ridiculous (like few grams on a suspension arm of Protons) but since they are existing everyone must understand they are mandatory and they are mandatory for every competitors not only privateers.
[youtube]pptu_ZWK-uQ[/youtube]
in my opinion Citroen must be disqualified.
About the clutch mechanism....
yes it is heavier,but the supplier doesn t product a wrc car spare part by ''accident'' heavier.
Also a heavier clutch cover is more durable.More durable/heavier makes less happy the engine to rev,there is not so good gas response,but is stronger in terms of reliability.
About the turbocharger compressor wheel,we dont know the exact dimension from the wheel they measure.
That the turbo is supplied by Garett to all wrc cars is ridiculus excuse.Ok they are supplied by Garett,but no one will stop you to modify.
The gain is very tiny,as the turbo is with orifice.
The blades cant be longer after some km,while they have measured inside tolerances.
The gap between blades and housing is minimal,if they were geting longer,then they will touch the housing and then kaboom.There are street cars with 2,5 bar boost,that after some 30-50.000 km the blades are not longer.
A wrc team has to be very carefull about the homologated parts.We are talking about a 300 people team,they can measure(and they have to) every bolt or nut in a wrc car.Not a turbocharger,or a clutch cover...
Sorry Miko but thats rallying.Hope to gain another one in Argentina.
Epic Fail!Quote:
Originally Posted by GigiGalliNo1
All good conspiracy theories have freemasons in them. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Iskald
So... Mads's father is a freemason, and so is Loeb. And Jean Todt. So they got together and decided that the best thing for the lodge is that Mikko is excluded. Mikko is not a freemason, he's a knight templar. :p :
every team that gets an DQ or penalty says the illegal/mis manufacturerd parts did not gain them any advantage. Illegal parts never ever gained advantage in the autosport. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by 6789
Must be someone from North One Sport guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by mousti
I think you were generous when you say "a bit of a fail", that site really is rubbish!Quote:
Originally Posted by 6789
They're not all bad. They have splits. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by tfp
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
I heard Latval is one of those tricky Knights of the Cross and Petter is one of those nasty Rosicrucians.....
It sure explains a lot of the inexplicable.
Better than saying "sheeeet just happens''.....
Conspiracies. Treachery, dead bodies.... (what!!!??)
All swirling under the smooth calm exterior.. Always thought Loeb seem a little toooooooooooooooo relaxed.
AFAIK, the website is run by the FIA for now...Quote:
Originally Posted by Barreis
true...And many, many adverts!!Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
Bravo Mikk.. euhh non Mads.. euhh non Evgeny lolllllll... Bravo WRC.COM en tout cas lol
From planet marcus...I dont know what "en tout cas" means but I understand enough of the rest of the text to know that this is a dig at WRC.com - Ha!
Novikov - King of portugal :D
Yes, it does make a difference. In one scenario the part was legal but the paperwork wasn't correct whilst in the other the part was not legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ville
Maybe my best picture this weekend: imgur: the simple image sharer. On Friday, I was remembering the 2001 edition of the rally during the whole day. Worst conditions since it moved to the South. It was also the worse of the five editions I've travelled to the rally there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sollitt
Was the clutch actually illegal? Same way illegal like too light car or oversize intake restrictor? I understood that there was nothing illegal with the clutch, but it did not match with the one in papers. With different paperwork there would not have been any problem?
Of course it was a mistake, and Citroen deserves a sanction. But there are other options too than only disqualification.
Please show me where these options are listed in the FIA Schedule of PenaltiesQuote:
Originally Posted by Ville
I have no idea. But somehow in the history they have used time penalties with these unhomologated parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlo
I think it is quite OK when new manufacturer enters to the WRC and during the first year, nearly on the first rally, they have minor problems and they get time peanlties and severe reprimand. When next mistake appears then its should end withy the exclusion. Citroen and Ford have been there for ages and their mistakes should not be allowed anymore. Moreover, Citroen has little bit similar mistake already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ville
So, I am still in the position that every car that is using non-homologated parts or parts which are not like homologation states should be excluded. Only exception can be some minor problems and when the manufacturer first time enters to the sport.
Just curious, all cars goes through so deep check procedure?
And return to what I said earlier. Agree, to check more than 50 cars is impossible. But at least there are no more than 10 cars, who can be called as pretenders for victory. Why not check all of them before the event? At least 4 cars are the most important?
What is algorithm to choose the car to check after the event?
As for me it looks there was insider information.
Interesting, if e.g. Solberg or JML won the event, and Mikko was 2nd, his car also would be so deeply checked?