Printable View
It seems to me this issue is the same as that of the Michelin tyres that Ferrari protested a few years back. Both passed the tests in place to determine conformance with the regulations until the FIA changed the measurement and in both cases no retrospective punishment was applied. Funny though, IIRC at the time you and a number of other Ferrari supporters argued that the Michelin tyres were illegal. Just to be clear, are you now saying that they weren't?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Surely its only wrong if you get caught? Then there is the evidence to prove its illegal.
That was a case that set a precedent and I might say that it's not a bad thing that the FIA sticks to their guns since then ( Renault MDS in 2006 and the floor problem at the start of this season).Quote:
Originally Posted by icsunonove
If you don't accept the change in rules for the Ferrari floor, then you must not accept the rules change for mass dampers, flex wings, McLaren brake steering, grooved tires, V8 engines, V10 engines, 19000 rpm limits, ad infinitum. These were ALL rule changes or reinterpretations of the rules. If you base legality on TODAY'S rules, then every V10 car, every V12 car, every car that ran on slicks was ILLEGAL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
Some see things as they really are - others only see what they want to see as long as it's in their team's (McLaren's) interest...
Your example is flawed a bit. I'll make it a bit closer to reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
The zone you mentioned is posted at 35. As long as you don't exceed 35, there is no penalty. You can safely cruise at 34.5 with no problem.
One day, the speed on the road is lowered to 30. Does that mean you were speeding when you drove at 34.5 in the past?
Isn't what Ferrari did the equivalent of developing and using a means to break the speed limit while fooling the measuring device into thinking they were driving within the limit? :dozey: :pQuote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
More like playing poker and the dealer calls jacks-wild. You play according to the rules and lay down your 5 kings, three true kings and 2 jacks, but then the dealer says " oh, not just any jack-- only one eyed jacks are wild" You only have three pair.
Ferrari's floor strikes me as similar to the issue of 'ride-height' in the early 80's. Following the banning of skirts teams were searching for ways to recover lost downforce. Rock hard suspension was one way to close the gap between sidepods and the ground, but in time FISA (FIA) specified the gap that was allowed. Cars were measured in the pits, but clever minds like Gordon Murray at Brabham realised there was no way to measure the gap when the cars were on track. So the Brabhams were equipped with a switch that kept the cars at the required height when measured, but which the driver could flick to another position that lowered the car, and so provided more downforce and grip, when on track.
These kind of things have always gone on, and the governing body is always forced to react. It is simply not possible for the FIA to legislate for everything that the teams may do to "circumvent" the rules, or at least test the very limits of the rules.
The defence for that argument is straight-forward and has many precedents.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
It could be argued that the enforcing authorities equipment in this case was incorrectly calibrated at the time....after all, the authorities had to change the testing method.....which would result in any speeding charge, or let's say sprung-floor charge, not making it into court.
The FIA, in the same way they dealt with the 2003 Michelin and 2006 Mass-Damper issues, evidently realised that, as too presumably did the lawyers down in Woking, hence no official protest but merely a request for clarification.
totally disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
using your example, the limit always has been and still is 35. the FIA have said that if anyone were to exceed that speed limit, it would be strictly prohibited and put in a measure to ensure people will get caught red handed if they drive over 35 in the future.
I think some people are argueing just for the hell of it. The facts are that the FIA said that such a device would be strictly prohibited if used and Ferrari changed it. end of story.
Im not calling for Ferrari to be penalised or anything but merely made the point that people claiming that Ron was lying when he said it was an illegal device were themselves wrong.
end of story, its all there in black and white from the FIA. argue with Charlie Whiting, not me because Ive posted the rules which say that such a device would be illegal and the evidence from the FIA confirming it would be.
I really dont see how people can argue without refuting the evidence with facts.
Fact 1 - The Ferrari F2007 was not excluded from the Australian GP as it complied with all the requirements of scrutineering and FIA regulation tests set down by the governing body at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
Fact 2 - Mclaren only asked for clarification of a regulation. They did not protest the legality of the F2007. See Fact 3
Fact 3- The device only became illegal after the FIA changed the way they measured flexibility. In the eyes of any justice system in the civilised world, until that point in time it was legal, hence no official protest of the Australian GP result by Mclaren.
Fact 4 - Ron Dennis later claimed the car was illegal, when it evidently was not as it abided with the regulations in place at the time. Therefore, Ron Dennis's statement is false.
Fact 4 - Mclaren gained information on the Ferrari spring design, which they then used as a basis for the own design to present to the FIA, from an unauthorised and illegal source.
Fact 5 - Charlie Whiting's comments are aimed solely in reply to Mclaren's proposed design which, as any lawyer would point out, was supplied along with a leading statement pointing out that the design was aimed at breaking the regulations. A leading statement is inadmissable in a court and would be struck from the record.
Fact 6 - Charlie Whiting makes no reference to Ferrari.
Those are facts.
That's pure baloney.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
The official authority would have to prove that the speed limit had been broken previously, which it could not do. No evidence of an illegal act could be brought to the attention of the court and the case would be instantly dismissed.
You are arguing emotionally and with a degree of logic, but not in the only terms that are relevant, which are legal ones.
The FIA said that such a device, if used, would be prohibited from the Malaysian GP onwards. That is a fact. However, they made no reference to the devices being used at the Australian GP as being illegal.
Using the FIA's statement post Australian GP as a 'fact' regarding the legality of the F2007 in Melbourne is not a fact.
That is a wholely misleading statement and is most definitely not a fact.
At the moment, you would be dismissed as an unrelaible witness or even of being in contempt of court.
I would strongly advise you to get a legal defence team and answer simply 'no comment' from now on.
No. The difference is that in the speed limit case, you post the allowed speed, and then use a device to measure it. On the other hand, in F1 all body regulations are given in terms of measurements: there is no conceptual definition, and a separate measurement to see if the concept is respected.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
In the particular case we are talking about, if you read all of the technical F1 regulations, you won't find the words "flat floor" on them.
It's beginning to be obvious that Flat.tyres and ArrowsFA1 are either trolling, immensely bored, or absolute worshippers of Ron Dennis who would sacrifice their first born to him if he asked (no, make that hinted.)
No matter how many arguments are placed before them, and no matter how things are simplified, they refuse to see things as they are.
McLaren have no further problem with the handling of Ferrari's floor.
The FIA have no further problem with the handling of Ferrari's floor.
No other F1 team has any problem with the handling of Ferrari's floor.
Only Flat.tyres and ArrowsFA1 seem to have a problem with Ferrari's floor as it existed 8 races ago. Time has moved on and left you two behind. Now I'll do the same. If I get bored, I'll come back in 2010 or 2011 and you will still be carrying on the same argument.
:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
You should re-read my posts, but I agree with you that time has moved on. The issue of Ferrari's floor has been, gone, been dealt with. It's a non-issue. The only reason it's being argued over here ad nauseam is that it's a stick to beat McLaren with in the context of everything else that's going on.
Specifically, the argument is made that McLaren should have passed the information contained in the email concerning Ferrari's floor, sent (allegedly) by Stepney, to the FIA. They did, but they did so without revealing the source of the information.
From there, the argument goes, as McLaren used information provided by a Ferrari employee once then of course they would do the same again. So when Coughlan was found in possession of the 780-page document obviously McLaren looked at it, used it, and some say even built a Ferrari F2007 :laugh:
The eagerness with which some jump on circumstantial evidence and unfounded allegations, while making vitriolic personal attacks on Ron Dennis, is absurd.
I can certainly see why Ferrari object to their IP being in the possession of a McLaren employee, but they should be looking closer to home for how this whole situation started.
Roll on the 13th September :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
The hell they did. Do you just make this crap up assuming no one knows or is it a british thing where you all just repeat lies over and and over hoping they stick?
Oh really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendersen
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57650 - Tuesday, March 27th 2007Quote:
The FIA has modified its bodywork tests to ensure a floor mounting system used primarily by Ferrari does not circumvent the regulations, autosport.com can reveal, after McLaren asked the governing body for a clarification over the matter.
McLaren asked the governing body for a clarification over the matter means McLaren passed the information contained in the email concerning Ferrari's floor to the FIA.
Indeed. But by asking for a "clarification", they did not report that someone SENT them information from ferrari. They did not have to mention names, but they should have reported that someone was leaking such information. You know exactly why they would not have, because they are dirty cheats that didn't want to burn up any bridges, whether those bridges were illegal or not they thought they would never have to worry about. Now they do. Quit making it sound like they forwarded the email and deleted the name, which is what they should have done.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
I wont even bother answering such a childish statement when all Ive posted is facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
you are quite wrong. I had no further problem with the Ferrari floor once it was changed to comply with the rules as you say. i have never called for Ferrari to be penalised but merely pointed out that the Rules havent changed but a testing procedure has been modified to stop people breaking the rules.Quote:
No matter how many arguments are placed before them, and no matter how things are simplified, they refuse to see things as they are.
McLaren have no further problem with the handling of Ferrari's floor.
The FIA have no further problem with the handling of Ferrari's floor.
No other F1 team has any problem with the handling of Ferrari's floor.
I have no real problem with this, have you?
time has most definatly moved on. This was a small matter that needed clarification after the first race as these things usually do. as Arrows says, without the further illegal activities of Stepney and Coghlan, this would have been a non event but now, people are trying to turn Mclaren into the bad guys for asking for clarification on a device that the FIA has stated would be illegal.Quote:
Only Flat.tyres and ArrowsFA1 seem to have a problem with Ferrari's floor as it existed 8 races ago. Time has moved on and left you two behind. Now I'll do the same. If I get bored, I'll come back in 2010 or 2011 and you will still be carrying on the same argument.
Does anyone deny any of this or can we move on?
There's little or no difference between what you're saying McLaren should have done, and what they did do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendersen
Huh? you are a mod here? You ARE trolling. What the hell, dude? It's perfectly obvious they acted in a way to protect themselves from being suspect of having information they should not have had, that they in fact illegally had on top of trying to hold on to the secrecy of their spy whom provided it..Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
So had they forwarded the email and deleted the name, which is what you say they should have done, what difference would that have made to the outcome?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendersen
The information would still have got to the FIA. The FIA would still have acted. Stepney's name would still have been kept out of it.
You say that McLaren "should not have had" the email. Well, if a Ferrari employee had not sent it in the first place Coughlan would not have had it in his inbox.
You say that McLaren had the email "illegally". Did they steal it? Did they break into Maranello under cover of the night and escape with the email? Did they phone a Ferrari employee and ask for it? Nope. None of the above. A Ferrari employee sent it to a McLaren employee.
As for the "secrecy of their spy" - That's exactly the kind of circumstantial accusation I was referring to earlier. There are lots of them thrown about regularly as if they were facts in this case.
why bother Arrorw. the bloke has more flames than Burger king.
Some people are a bit touchy around here because the "McLaren truth" it's not as obvious as they thought it is! :D
It might be! :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Uhh, it would have went a long way in clearing Mclaren of wrong doing. Instead, it now looks like they are rotten to the core and were being purposefully deceitful to the FIA. And I never said that's what they should have done, you were trying to spin the entire scenario as if that what actually happened. Do not project your BS on me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Actually, Ferrari had nothing to be concerned about as far as legality was concerned. They were not the ones with illegal info on their computers. Mclaren was.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
It's not different than stolen property. Stop with your useless canards and BS attempts at rationalzing. It doesn't how they got it. They could bought it at a rummage sale. Having it is illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Why else didn't Mclaren immediately contact Ferrari that they had a leaker and contact the FIA and tell them the situation in full? Mclaren is not some 2 year old that doesn't quite understand the rules of grown ups. They know god damn well what's going on and when/if they could be held responsible for something. Hopefully it blows up in their obviously cheating faces.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
So who exactly posted this :confused: :crazy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendersen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendersen
Complete trolling. That was a sarcastic post directed at your BS comments about how you were trying to make the scenario sound. It was not my suggestion they do such, you were suggesting that's what they actually did..Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
like when you claimed that there has never been a contested pit lane place and a load of other BS (as you put it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendersen
thims for beddy byes :z :arrows:
I said I never saw one like alonso turning the pitlane into a drag race. Must forgive me for not watching every practice run, qualifying lap, and race. Sometimes we don't even get GPs in the united states, and sometimes they are several hours delayed( and unless something controversial happened, why watch). Stay on topic and quit trolling like your pal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
hey, ignorance is no crime fella but dont try and use it as an excuse :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendersen
some of us like F1 for the sport, not the controvercy but smashes and crashes are appealing I suppose to a particular type of fan.
fortunatly, I know your not typical of the majority of American F1 fans who are very knowledgeable (if sometimes misguided about JV Fousto :laugh: ) so dont let your inferiority syndrome worry you ;)
Ok, I can read it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendersen
Whether McLaren mentioned the source of the information or not does not alter the fact that there was a question over the legality of the floor which was a perfectly legitimate one to raise, regardless of the subsequent outcome.
The anger of Ferrari fans does seem rather misdirected. It's the information that did the (perceived) damage to their team, not the way it got to the FIA.
Nope. But would the questions have been raised had they not been given it? That's the question, because if not, then it could be argued in a court of law that the actions of Mclaren were 1. based on illegal information, and 2. compromised the standings of a competitior(ferrari). They may even have a case in a international court law on a civil level that could financially ruin Mclaren if Ferrari doesn't win the WDC. I'm sure they can project damages in car sales in losing versus winning years.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Huh? More like the Mclaren fans seem rather misdirected in general at whats going on on the planet Earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Given Stepney's view - "You only needed to take a look at the car to realize what was wrong, it was obvious for people who work in F1. At McLaren they knew without the need for whistle blowing" - the answer to that is yes, questions would have been raised regardless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendersen
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Ya, I'm sure he'd going to have an entirely imprtial expert opinion on the matters.
Than why the need to send them the info?!Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
ask the Ferrari employee. he's the one that committed the offenceQuote:
Originally Posted by ioan
It's not surprising that Stepney's opinion should be dismissed out of hand, but as early as the 2006 Brazilian GP the issue of flexible aerodynamics and the spring mounting on the Ferrari 248 F1's front splitter was being raised, and illustrated, by Craig Scarborough, a journalist writing in Autosport's online journal.
For those who know what to look at, and where to look, it's not too hard to see what other teams are up to. It's known that teams hire photographers to take photos of developments up and down the pitlane for goodness sake, and that kind of thing is nothing new. Buy the current issue of MotorSport magazine and you'll be able to read all about "some of the past’s murkier dealings".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendersen
Mclaren was imply trying to have their cake and eat it too, and they got caught in the act, just as they have on several occaisions this year...problem is that we have a "moderator" who can not accept it, so..........so much for being even handed in this matter or accepting that which can not be denied as someone might expect from a moderator rather than the whims and emotions of favoritism
quit whining and come up with something constructive then. :rolleyes: what you gonna do, stamp your foot until people agree with you? :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly