FIA sends spy case to Court of Appeal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

:laugh: Im the last person to complain about grammer. Mine is terrible :laugh:

---

Also your spelling, judging by that sentence! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

They should have said "Thank you but we advise you to go straight to Max with this info".

---

With the benefit of hindsight, given all the circumstantial accusations made in the light of the email being sent, McLaren might agree. But, whether they advised the sender of the email to do what you suggest, or did what they did, makes little or no difference.

Either way McLaren did approach the FIA with the information, and action was taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

The floor was not illegal. Come back when you get this point right, it's really getting boring to explain it to you again and again (and I see that others tried to explain it to you extensively for some time too) :rolleyes:

---

The legality or otherwise of the floor is debateable. What is not in question is the fact that, having looked at the floor, the FIA took action to close a loophole in the regulations which affected all teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

The floor was not illegal. Come back when you get this point right, it's really getting boring to explain it to you again and again (and I see that others tried to explain it to you extensively for some time too) :rolleyes:

---

you keep saying it and I keep failing to understand it.

what we are talking about it a device mounted on springs which moves under loading to give a beneficial aerodynamic impact. Right or Wrong?

then answer the following regulations, particulaly the last one and answer me

1. How did the Ferrari conform with these regulations?

2. Why did they not get penalised?



1.4 Bodywork:
All entirely sprung parts of the car in contact with the external air
stream, except cameras and the parts definitely associated with the
mechanical functioning of the engine, transmission and running gear.
Airboxes, radiators and engine exhausts are considered to be part of
the bodywork.

2.4 Compliance with the regulations:
Automobiles must comply with these regulations in their entirety at
all times during an Event.
Should a competitor feel that any aspect of these regulations is
unclear, clarification may be sought from the FIA Formula One
Technical Department.

3.12.7 No bodywork more than 150mm from the car centre line,
which is visible from beneath the car and which lies between the rear
wheel centre line and a point 330mm forward of it may be more than
125mm above the reference plane. Any intersection of the surfaces
in this area with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form
one continuous line which is visible from beneath the car.
Additionally, any bodywork in this area must produce uniform, solid,
hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the
body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances.

3.15 Aerodynamic influence:
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used
in the pit lane) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific
part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:
- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly
secured means not having any degree of freedom).
- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap
between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited
under all circumstances.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the
bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may
under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

now, again I say it, the sprung bodywork, that moved under loading to increase the performance of the Ferrari, was ILLEGAL.

Ive proved where I think it is so perhaps you can prove where it isnt?

All the FIA have done is change the tests to pick up on this cheating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveA

Also your spelling, judging by that sentence! ;)

---

no complaints from me on that one either fella :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

you keep saying it and I keep failing to understand it.

what we are talking about it a device mounted on springs which moves under loading to give a beneficial aerodynamic impact. Right or Wrong?

then answer the following regulations, particulaly the last one and answer me

1. How did the Ferrari conform with these regulations?

2. Why did they not get penalised?



1.4 Bodywork:
All entirely sprung parts of the car in contact with the external air
stream, except cameras and the parts definitely associated with the
mechanical functioning of the engine, transmission and running gear.
Airboxes, radiators and engine exhausts are considered to be part of
the bodywork.

2.4 Compliance with the regulations:
Automobiles must comply with these regulations in their entirety at
all times during an Event.
Should a competitor feel that any aspect of these regulations is
unclear, clarification may be sought from the FIA Formula One
Technical Department.

3.12.7 No bodywork more than 150mm from the car centre line,
which is visible from beneath the car and which lies between the rear
wheel centre line and a point 330mm forward of it may be more than
125mm above the reference plane. Any intersection of the surfaces
in this area with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form
one continuous line which is visible from beneath the car.
Additionally, any bodywork in this area must produce uniform, solid,
hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the
body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances.

3.15 Aerodynamic influence:
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used
in the pit lane) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific
part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:
- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly
secured means not having any degree of freedom).
- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap
between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited
under all circumstances.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the
bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may
under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

now, again I say it, the sprung bodywork, that moved under loading to increase the performance of the Ferrari, was ILLEGAL.

Ive proved where I think it is so perhaps you can prove where it isnt?

All the FIA have done is change the tests to pick up on this cheating.

---

The text you posted with bold letter contradicts your claim of illegality. :laugh:
So if you still don't get it right why do you reply? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

With the benefit of hindsight, given all the circumstantial accusations made in the light of the email being sent, McLaren might agree. But, whether they advised the sender of the email to do what you suggest, or did what they did, makes little or no difference.

---

Benefit of hindsight?! You mean that if Ferrari wouldn't have found out than it would have been all rosy and correct?
Ron took the wrong decision at that moment, they shouldn't have accepted the info coming from Stepney. But they did it! Because they wanted to win at all costs! Who says they didn't persuade Stepney to send them the 780 pages afterwards? Maybe they blackmailed him using his previous email about the Ferrari floor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

The legality or otherwise of the floor is debateable. What is not in question is the fact that, having looked at the floor, the FIA took action to close a loophole in the regulations which affected all teams.

---

You contradict yourself there, if there was a loophole in the regs than the floor could not be illegal before they chose to close the loophole! :p :

BTW what's your opinion about Ron lying to the stewards and bringing the sport into disrepute?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

The text you posted with bold letter contradicts your claim of illegality.

---

Could you explain exactly how it contradicts the claim of illegality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Benefit of hindsight?! You mean that if Ferrari wouldn't have found out than it would have been all rosy and correct?

---

No, that's not what I meant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Who says they didn't persuade Stepney to send them the 780 pages afterwards? Maybe they blackmailed him using his previous email about the Ferrari floor?

---

That's exactly the kind of circumstantial accusation I was referring to!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

You contradict yourself there, if there was a loophole in the regs than the floor could not be illegal before they chose to close the loophole!

---

A loophole is a means or opportunity of evading a rule. Ferrari took the opportunity to evade the intention of the existing rule. That's why I say it is debateable whether Ferrari's floor was illegal or not. Having received information about the floor the FIA acted to close the loophole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

The legality or otherwise of the floor is debateable. What is not in question is the fact that, having looked at the floor, the FIA took action to close a loophole in the regulations which affected all teams.

---

The device was not illegal in Melbourne , but became so before the second race .
There is no debate about this . Had they been illegal in Oz , Ferrari and others would have been sanctioned .

And , to state that it "affected all teams" implies that perhaps McLaren had to change as well . As I understand it , McLaren did not have to change .


What would have happened if Coughlan had received the info from Stepney and said "Oh , yeah , we use one of those , too." ?
I would suggest that they would have kept quiet .

But , it leads me to wonder how Nigel knew that McLaren weren't , when apparently others in the pit lane were .
Did Newey at the bulls have one on his car(s) ?


This move to ask for clarification messed with more than just Ferrari .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

...to state that it "affected all teams" implies that perhaps McLaren had to change as well . As I understand it , McLaren did not have to change.

---

This is what I based my "affected all teams" comment on:

Quote:

---

The tougher movable floor tests introduced by the FIA for the Spanish Grand Prix will force every team to make changes to their designs...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

The device was not illegal in Melbourne , but became so before the second race .
There is no debate about this . Had they been illegal in Oz , Ferrari and others would have been sanctioned .

And , to state that it "affected all teams" implies that perhaps McLaren had to change as well . As I understand it , McLaren did not have to change .


What would have happened if Coughlan had received the info from Stepney and said "Oh , yeah , we use one of those , too." ?
I would suggest that they would have kept quiet .

But , it leads me to wonder how Nigel knew that McLaren weren't , when apparently others in the pit lane were .
Did Newey at the bulls have one on his car(s) ?


This move to ask for clarification messed with more than just Ferrari .

---

Bagwan

your generally quite objective.

would you say that its possible that the Ferrari (and others) floor was illegal but that it wasnt showing up in the tests.

McLaren asked for clarification subsequent and the loophole (testing process) was changed but for the good of the sport, no retrospective action was taken? surely widespread sanctions up and down the pitlane would be destructive, wouldn't it?

not to McLaren of course as if they had of complained rather than request clarification, the FIA would have been forced to view this differently.

which begs the question of why Ron took the softly, softly approach rather than go for the jugular. He could have done either and still not dropped Stepney in it.

what do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

The text you posted with bold letter contradicts your claim of illegality. :laugh:
So if you still don't get it right why do you reply? :rolleyes:

---

please justify that comment as to why it contradicts the illegality of the Ferrari? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

The legality or otherwise of the floor is debateable. What is not in question is the fact that, having looked at the floor, the FIA took action to close a loophole in the regulations which affected all teams.

---

not strictly true Arrows. the FIA have already said that such a device would be illegal.

Quote:

---

In his letter, which also contained a diagram of McLaren's plans, Lowe wrote: "We would like to consider the installation of a mechanism on the front of our floor, consisting of springs and pivots.
http://www.autosport.com/images/upload/1174997867.gif"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."
Lowe's letter was clearly aimed at clarifying whether or not the use of such a device was deemed legal if its sole intention was to get around the FIA's flexibility tests.
A week later, FIA technical delegate Charlie Whiting responded to McLaren, and in a letter also distributed to every other team, he clarified the allowed usage of such a device - and revealed that bodywork testing would be altered accordingly.
Whiting wrote: "The test described in Article 3.17.4 is intended to test the flexibility of bodywork in that area, not the resistance of a device fitted for the purpose of allowing the bodywork to move further once the maximum test load is exceeded.
"Quite clearly, any such device would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations.
"We have no objection to a device in this area which is fitted to prevent the bodywork from moving downwards, provided it is clear that it is not designed to circumvent the test described in Article 3.17.4.
"Therefore, with immediate effect, we will be testing bodywork in the relevant area with any such devices removed."

---

now, correct me if Im wrong but if Ferrari were using a device that allowed them to permit flexibility, then according to Charlie, it would be prohibited. l;ast time I checked, that made it illegal otherwise Ferrari wouldn't have changed it. :confused:

now ioan, explain just where Charlie and I are confusing the rules :laugh:

sorry, forgot to include the reference which is the ever reliable and referencable http://www.autosport.com

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57650

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

Bagwan

[your generally quite objective.]

So , you're implying I'm not being objective now ?

[would you say that its possible that the Ferrari (and others) floor was illegal but that it wasnt showing up in the tests.]

Had it been illegal , there simply would not have been a need for clarification .

[McLaren asked for clarification subsequent and the loophole (testing process) was changed but for the good of the sport, no retrospective action was taken? surely widespread sanctions up and down the pitlane would be destructive, wouldn't it?

not to McLaren of course as if they had of complained rather than request clarification, the FIA would have been forced to view this differently.]

Had the Ferrari been found illegal , whether through a protest or request for clarification , they would have had to take action .
Having requested a clarification , rather than protest , McLaren did not risk the cost of losing the protest .
Perhaps they knew that Ferrari had an interpretation of the rules that allowed it , and therefore knew they would lose .

[which begs the question of why Ron took the softly, softly approach rather than go for the jugular. He could have done either and still not dropped Stepney in it.]

Ron spoke "softly , softly" about a red herring .

what do you think?

---

I try to be objective .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

not strictly true Arrows. the FIA have already said that such a device would be illegal.

now, correct me if Im wrong but if Ferrari were using a device that allowed them to permit flexibility, then according to Charlie, it would be prohibited. last time I checked, that made it illegal otherwise Ferrari wouldn't have changed it. :confused:

now ioan, explain just where Charlie and I are confusing the rules :laugh:

---

I'll correct you....and perhaps this line from the statement you quoted might help......

"We have no objection to a device in this area which is fitted to prevent the bodywork from moving downwards, provided it is clear that it is not designed to circumvent the test described in Article 3.17.4."

Is it clear that the spring was designed to circumvent the test?

Considering that your beloved Mclaren had information on the device, but still only asked for clarification and not a direct protest, would it not be fair to say that it was not clear and definable that the purpose of the device was to circumvent the rule?

Since Mclaren knew all about it but chose not to protest, methinks there is a very good case to say it wasn't clear.

Unless, heavens forbid, your man Ron made a mistake?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

please justify that comment as to why it contradicts the illegality of the Ferrari? :confused:

---

The floor had passed all the test and complied with all the points of the regs you were quoting! :rolleyes:
It was so obvious! :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

I'll correct you....and perhaps this line from the statement you quoted might help......

"We have no objection to a device in this area which is fitted to prevent the bodywork from moving downwards, provided it is clear that it is not designed to circumvent the test described in Article 3.17.4."

Is it clear that the spring was designed to circumvent the test?

Considering that your beloved Mclaren had information on the device, but still only asked for clarification and not a direct protest, would it not be fair to say that it was not clear and definable that the purpose of the device was to circumvent the rule?

Since Mclaren knew all about it but chose not to protest, methinks there is a very good case to say it wasn't clear.

Unless, heavens forbid, your man Ron made a mistake?

---

look, lets not beat around the bush on this.

McLaren had a design and copied it to the FIA for clarification in which they asked if it was legal.

The FIA wrote

Quote:

---

"The test described in Article 3.17.4 is intended to test the flexibility of bodywork in that area, not the resistance of a device fitted for the purpose of allowing the bodywork to move further once the maximum test load is exceeded.
"Quite clearly, any such device would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations.

---

the design, supplioed by a Ferrari employee, was designed to permit flexibility and was therefore strictly prohibited by the FIA.

if Ferraris design functioned differently in any way to the one supplied by McLaren then why the f*ck did they change it.

face it, Ferrari had a sprung floor that was strictly prohibited and because McLaren asked for clarification, the FIA altered the way the floor was tested to stop the cheat.

you caqnnot argue against the facts in this one because the FIA are saying that such a device is illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

The floor had passed all the test and complied with all the points of the regs you were quoting! :rolleyes:
It was so obvious! :p :

---

well, I didn't quote the tests so lets leave that out of it.

if the floor complied with the regs, then Ferrari would still be using it, wouldn't they?

so, it didnt comply with the regs and as Charlie says, was strictly prohibited, therefor it was illegal and the testing procedures were changed to pick this up.

let me give you an example.

your sitting an exam, the moderator is looking the other way so you cop a look at a book you've sneaked in with the answer on. you dont get caught because you weren't seen.

are you guilty of cheating?

now, lets pretend one of your colleagues saw you and asked the principal if it was allowed to bring books in. The principle, realising that this pupil is suggesting someone else is, says no, it bloody well isn't allowed and I'm going to search pupils before exams in future.

see where Im going with this.

The car contraveyned the rules. it got away with it. the FIA decided to test differently to stop people breaking the rules and suddenly Ferrari change their design and are back at the same pace as the McLaren.

Mmmmmmmm ;)

At the next exam, the Ferrari student would bring in a magazine, and claim that technically, a magazine isn't a book so it's legal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

I say it, the sprung bodywork, that moved under loading to increase the performance of the Ferrari, was ILLEGAL..

---

No it wasn't illegal.
If it had been illegal, THEN FIA had punished Ferrari.
That easy :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

wmcot, I believe the "logical process" Flat.tyres refers to is the one I speculated on earlier (post #191) regarding the possible actions of the "whistleblower", a part of which tamburello took exception to.

Remember, the theft of Ferrari's IP was carried out by a Ferrari employee, not McLaren. Also remember there are two distinct pieces of IP - the email highlighting the flexi-floor, then the 780-page document.

In the case of the email, we can argue about the correct courses of action that could have been taken once the contents were known by McLaren, but they are not responsible for the theft.

Once they knew of the contents of the email what were they to do? In light of the fact that it appeared Ferrari had a floor designed to get around the rules should they simply have returned the email to Ferrari and done nothing? Should they have forwarded the email to the FIA explaining how it had come into their possession? Or should they have raised the question with the FIA in the way they did, which did not (initially) break the confidence of the whistleblower?

What difference would taking one of the first two options have made to the outcome? Either way Ferrari were running a floor that was designed to get around the regulations and McLaren knew the contents whatever they did.

What exactly were McLaren guilty of with regard to the email?

---

Actually we seem to be talking about 2 different things. Stepney is the guilty party and his actions were those of a spy, not a whistleblower.

Since McLaren received the information in a legally questionable manner, if they wanted to be above reproach, they should have taken it to Charlie Whiting, Max Mosley, or a course steward since those would have been the proper authorities. The way it was handled by asking a "hypothetical" question about the design of floors seems that McLaren were being more devious rather than coming straight forward with the "integrity" that Ron keeps going on about.

If they had reported the email, I doubt they would have received the 780 page document (unless they, Coughlan, already had it) since they would have shown that they were not interested in receiving other team's IP.

Ron can claim his team has integrity all he wants, but the actions of his team show otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

look, lets not beat around the bush on this.

McLaren had a design and copied it to the FIA for clarification in which they asked if it was legal.

face it, Ferrari had a sprung floor that was strictly prohibited and because McLaren asked for clarification, the FIA altered the way the floor was tested to stop the cheat.

you caqnnot argue against the facts in this one because the FIA are saying that such a device is illegal.

---

It's quite easy to argue your 'fact' because your 'fact' is not exactly a 'fact'.

The FIA have not said that the floor was illegal in Melbourne.

The 'fact' of the matter is that the results in Australia have not been protested nor have Ferrari been disqualified.

So it was either legal or it couldn't be proved to be illegal, which in case you don't have sufficient legal knowledge, equates to the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

well, I didn't quote the tests so lets leave that out of it.

if the floor complied with the regs, then Ferrari would still be using it, wouldn't they?

---

The floor complied with the allowable flexing as measured at Melbourne in scrutineering, hence it was legal.

The method of measurement was changed after Melbourne redefining the interpretation of the rules and causing the design of the floor to be modified. If the floor was to be used under the new rules it would be illegal.

Here's an example for you - In 1996, the rules were modified to require a V10 engine. If a team ran a V12, they would have been disqualified. Does that make all the teams running v12's in 1995 and before illegal? No. Rules change and are modified on an ongoing basis in F1. It happens all the time.

Mass dampers, rear brake steering, etc. were all declared illegal AFTER the rules were re-interpreted. Should McLaren and Renault be disqualified from all the races these "illegal" (your word, not mine) devices were used in?

Does Ron Dennis make your eyeglasses? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

Stepney is the guilty party and his actions were those of a spy, not a whistleblower.

---

Without knowing the full story of Stepney's situation at Ferrari and what his motivations were it's difficult to know for sure. Perhaps we'll know more given time, although probably not in time for the FIA appeal hearing unfortunately. If Stepney did send the email (he has denied doing so) it's hard to imagine him doing that for reasons other than to damage Ferrari, and if we assume that was his intent then it could be argued that he succeeded to a degree.

Whatever Stepney's motivation, once the email was sent the information was out there. Did McLaren use the information to copy the design? No. Did they raise the issue with the FIA? Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

The way it was handled by asking a "hypothetical" question about the design of floors seems that McLaren were being more devious rather than coming straight forward with the "integrity" that Ron keeps going on about.

---

Perhaps, but the fact remains that the issue was raised with the FIA, and addressed. That would have happened regardless of how the email was dealt with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

If they had reported the email, I doubt they would have received the 780 page document (unless they, Coughlan, already had it) since they would have shown that they were not interested in receiving other team's IP.

---

That's exactly the kind of circumstantial accusation I was referring to earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

The 'fact' of the matter is that the results in Australia have not been protested nor have Ferrari been disqualified.

---

Correct. Ferrari's floor was legal in Australia because it had been designed to get around the FIA test as it was in Australia. In the light of information that pointed this out, the test was revised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Correct. Ferrari's floor was legal in Australia because it had been designed to get around the FIA test as it was in Australia. In the light of information that pointed this out, the test was revised.

---

I still cannot accept this.

If the floor was legal in Australia, it would still be legal now as the RULES have NOT been changed.

If anyone can prove to me that the rules have been changed then I will accept it was legal in Australia.

what was changed was the way the floor was tested because Charlie Whiting said that a movable floor such as the one McLaren proposed, was strictly prohibited and introduced new testing procedures to ensure people couldnt cheat in this way.

if Ferrari had a sprung floor that was strictly prohibited, then it was illegal whether or not the testing procedures identified it as such.

if Ferrari had a sprung floor that did not contravene the rules, they wouldnt have changed it, would they, as the rules have not been changed.

the only reason that Ferrari got away with this is that in the first GP, there is always a load of scrabbleing with teams trying it on and other teams asking if what the opposition is doing is legal. It always happens. there is an unwritten understanding that allows a degree of freedom and always has been. this, in my opinion, is the only reason Ferrari wasnt boll*cked but doesnt change the basic premis of illegality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

If the floor was legal in Australia, it would still be legal now as the RULES have NOT been changed.

If anyone can prove to me that the rules have been changed then I will accept it was legal in Australia.

---

Do you not accept that the revised test was effectively a rule change?

Flat.tyres has a point :up:
A rule change is a rule change and a revised test is a revised test. Just as a clarification of the rules is a clarification of the rules. :erm:
Donkey's verdict: illegal :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Do you not accept that the revised test was effectively a rule change?

---

no I dont.

lets take a speeding car then.

the law (rules) say you cannot speed over 30 in a 30 zone. the current test is a static camera or mobile units. if you do over 30, are you breaking the rules? Yes or No?

so, to stop people exploiting this loophole, ie speeding when there is no test in place, the testing procedure is changed so that a GPS system is fitted in every car to monitor if you speed.

the rule is still the same. you get penalty points and a fine if you speed but just the way you are tested has been altered to stop people getting away with it.

see what I mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Do you not accept that the revised test was effectively a rule change?

---

If it's about Ferrari than even white is black for some people! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

no I dont.

lets take a speeding car then.

the law (rules) say you cannot speed over 30 in a 30 zone. the current test is a static camera or mobile units. if you do over 30, are you breaking the rules? Yes or No?

so, to stop people exploiting this loophole, ie speeding when there is no test in place, the testing procedure is changed so that a GPS system is fitted in every car to monitor if you speed.

the rule is still the same. you get penalty points and a fine if you speed but just the way you are tested has been altered to stop people getting away with it.

see what I mean?

---

No I don't! :D :p :

I mean how do you know that someone was speeding before you change the testing procedure?

No offence but your arguments are getting dumber and dumber with every post. :\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

No I don't! :D :p :

I mean how do you know that someone was speeding before you change the testing procedure?

No offence but your arguments are getting dumber and dumber with every post. :\

---

my arguement is watertight. you havent explained why, if the device was legal, they changed it and suffered a performance drop.

thats because you cant without admitting it was, as the FIA said, strictly prohibited under the rules.

No offence, but your steadfast denial to accept black and white, incontrvertible proof, makes you look unreasonable :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

If it's about Ferrari than even white is black for some people! :D

---

totally agree. please see last post :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

76let me give you an example.

your sitting an exam, the moderator is looking the other way so you cop a look at a book you've sneaked in with the answer on. you dont get caught because you weren't seen.

are you guilty of cheating?

now, lets pretend one of your colleagues saw you and asked the principal if it was allowed to bring books in. The principle, realising that this pupil is suggesting someone else is, says no, it bloody well isn't allowed and I'm going to search pupils before exams in future.

see where Im going with this.

The car contraveyned the rules. it got away with it. the FIA decided to test differently to stop people breaking the rules and suddenly Ferrari change their design and are back at the same pace as the McLaren.

Mmmmmmmm ;)

---

As it happens , I think your example is pretty good .
If a student is found with , say , 780 pages of unbound text , it isn't a book .
Therefore , if the rules state that you can't bring books in , the principal should be obligated to rewrite the rules stating that no books or unbound paper is allowed into the exam room .
Certainly , in the case of the school , we might see the student forced to re-take the exam , but this is F1 , where the letter is followed .

Just as the fiddle brake was clarified as an element used for steering the car , the sprung floor was shown to be more likely used for allowing the floor to flex up than keep it down .

Both were banned , with no retro-active punnishment .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

my arguement is watertight. you havent explained why, if the device was legal, they changed it and suffered a performance drop.

thats because you cant without admitting it was, as the FIA said, strictly prohibited under the rules.

No offence, but your steadfast denial to accept black and white, incontrvertible proof, makes you look unreasonable :p :

---

Everyone but you is saying it was white and therefor legal still you won't take it! :rolleyes:
Even if your name was Ron Dennis it would have got in by now!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

As it happens , I think your example is pretty good .
If a student is found with , say , 780 pages of unbound text , it isn't a book .
Therefore , if the rules state that you can't bring books in , the principal should be obligated to rewrite the rules stating that no books or unbound paper is allowed into the exam room .
Certainly , in the case of the school , we might see the student forced to re-take the exam , but this is F1 , where the letter is followed .

Just as the fiddle brake was clarified as an element used for steering the car , the sprung floor was shown to be more likely used for allowing the floor to flex up than keep it down .

Both were banned , with no retro-active punnishment .

---

sorry, in an earlier post you asked me a question as to if I thought you werent being objective and I didnt respond. I did not imply that and am sorry if you thought I did. It was, at face value, a statement that you seem pretty objective.

if we want to talk about the pedal, it might be appropiate to take it to the History forum as I will need to do a bit of digging around and ask a few questions about the laws at the time and the ruleing. Im not dissagreeing with you but claiming ignorance of the facts.

however, back to this case :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Everyone but you is saying it was white and therefor legal still you won't take it! :rolleyes:
Even if your name was Ron Dennis it would have got in by now!

---

please can you back up that everyone was legal apart from me.

Ron Dennis said it was illegal. Charlie Whiting said if there was a device such as this it would be illegal and Ferrari changed the design of their car to remove it.

however, you and some Ferrari fans claim it was legal. :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

Charlie Whiting said if there was a device such as this it would be illegal and Ferrari changed the design of their car to remove it.

however, you and some Ferrari fans claim it was legal. :p :

---

Show me where Charlie Whiting names the Ferrari device as the one he is talking about?

The quote you've given refers to Mclaren's request for clarification about a design they submitted. Ferrari were not mentioned in that quote.

By that fact alone, Charlie Whiting has made no reference to the Ferrari floor fitted at Melbourne. Therefore the Ferrari floor was legal and passed the required tests at the time.

The only way you can claim that the Charlie Whiting quote you have given is relevant to Ferrari is if the Mclaren design was an exact copy of the Ferrari one....which, if that were the case, would hole the 'Mclaren Are innocent' campaign well below the water-line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

Ron Dennis said it was illegal.

---

Oh well, must be true then.

You seriously expect us to believe that if Ron Dennis knew the Ferrari was illegal he would not of protested it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

sorry, in an earlier post you asked me a question as to if I thought you werent being objective and I didnt respond. I did not imply that and am sorry if you thought I did. It was, at face value, a statement that you seem pretty objective.

if we want to talk about the pedal, it might be appropiate to take it to the History forum as I will need to do a bit of digging around and ask a few questions about the laws at the time and the ruleing. Im not dissagreeing with you but claiming ignorance of the facts.

however, back to this case :)

---

That 3rd pedal was photographed by a journalist , and investigated by the FIA as a result .
The reason for the pedal was to brake the inside wheel , aiding steering into the corner . As such , it was clearly against the rules , but not strictly prohibitted by them , and therefore the rules were re-written to outlaw such practice .
No retro-active punishment was issued , as , despite it's being against the spirit of the rules , it was not stated clearly as illegal .

There were people just as upset then as now , but , simply , it was and is the only fair way to look at it .