FIA sends spy case to Court of Appeal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

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.

---

The anger of Ferrari fans is misdirected?

Yeah, right.

The way the information got to the FIA is very much the issue here, as it blows a great big gaping hole in the idea/argument that Mclaren did not gain from having further information (the 780 page document) about Ferrari given to them.

We are asked to believe that a team which used illicitly obtained information in March then did not do the same in April/May.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

Yes, as a Ferrari fan I'm pissed off with Stepney, but he will be dealt with in the courts. Mclaren, on the other hand, who have been complicit with Stepney's illegal actions and allowed them to continue, we are asked to believe are really Saints.

Therefore our anger is not misdirected at all, it's very well aimed at Mclaren and their apologists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

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

---

Instead of denying the right of people to have an opinion that disagrees with your own, how about refuting some of the points made with a good argument that can be (to coin a phrase from ioan) backed up, and contribute to the discussion constructively.

Just as an example, here's how it could work:

Hendersen asked the question would the questions have been raised had McLaren not been given the information. Stepney has said "You only needed to take a look at the car to realize what was wrong, it was obvious for people who work in F1", Craig Scarborough has illustrated how it is possible to get information about what teams are up to, and it's well known that F1 teams employ photographers to get this kind of information.

Are you able to refute that McLaren could, and probably would, have known about Ferrari's floor without the email provided by the Ferrari employee?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Are you able to refute that McLaren could, and probably would, have known about Ferrari's floor without the email provided by the Ferrari employee?

---

Had Ron Dennis not already confirmed that Stepney supplied the info, then yours would be a reasonable argument......

Unfortunately for your argument, Ron Dennis has confirmed that Stepney gave them the information, which is not very good either for Stepney or for anyone using Stepney's statements as credible evidence.

The head of the team you are defending has already stated that the info came from Stepney and not from his own engineers. That's pretty clear evidence.

So, while it should have been possible for Mclaren to have figured it out themselves and for that to have been the source of their request for clarification, it most obviously was not.

Unless you believe Stepney and not Dennis, which doesn't do much for your arguments that Mclaren are innocent.

So, yes, your contention is easily refuted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Instead of denying the right of people to have an opinion that disagrees with your own, how about refuting some of the points made with a good argument that can be (to coin a phrase from ioan) backed up, and contribute to the discussion constructively.

---

Should just add that we've been doing that for 17 odd pages, but you're still coming up with the same tired and endlessly refuted/disproved statements.

You keep quoting Stepney as a credible witness, for example, when even Ron Dennis has publically denounced him.

No wonder Markabilly has lost his patience.

I, on the other hand, shall never tire of it, for it's both entertaining and a requirement of those who hold higher office in the Church of Enzo to defeat the infidels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

The anger of Ferrari fans is misdirected?

---

No, seems rather misdirected in my opinion.

I didn't say the way the information got to the FIA was not an issue, just that it was the information itself which caused a problem for Ferrari, and that information came from one of their own employees.

Any link between the email and the 780-page document is, to date, the subject of speculation. "Pull the other one, it's got bells on it" is not an argument that says otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Unfortunately for your argument, Ron Dennis has confirmed that Stepney gave them the information, which is not very good either for Stepney or for anyone using Stepney's statements as credible evidence.

---

How does you believing Ron Dennis in this instance make any difference. Stepney has said "It's not true that I revealed those irregularities." So you pays your money, you takes your choice. Neither of us know who sent the email, but it's safe to say it was sent by a Ferrari employee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

I, on the other hand, shall never tire of it, for it's both entertaining and a requirement of those who hold higher office in the Church of Enzo to defeat the infidels.

---

Participating in discussions that are seen in those terms by some is why I'm losing my patience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Instead of denying the right of people to have an opinion that disagrees with your own, how about refuting some of the points made with a good argument that can be (to coin a phrase from ioan) backed up, and contribute to the discussion constructively.

Just as an example, here's how it could work:

Hendersen asked the question would the questions have been raised had McLaren not been given the information. Stepney has said "You only needed to take a look at the car to realize what was wrong, it was obvious for people who work in F1", Craig Scarborough has illustrated how it is possible to get information about what teams are up to, and it's well known that F1 teams employ photographers to get this kind of information.

Are you able to refute that McLaren could, and probably would, have known about Ferrari's floor without the email provided by the Ferrari employee?

---

One can SPECULATE all day long about how it could have happenned and then try to refute this endless speculation about possibilities, chasing one's tail for a million years and never refute all the possibilities of gee, could be it was this or that, and when NS says it was obvious, gee, why did not the inspectors see it...and of course a thief who is trying to save himself from the gallows, is alawys to be trusted...so on....

Your last comment/question was demonstrates why mere speculation proves nothing: Are you able to refute that Mclaren could and would have known..without the email...is no different than saying the FIA could and would have known without the "aid" from Maclaren....or the fact that I shot him in the head, but sooner or later he was going to die anyway, so I should not be held accountable

your argument is the old political excersise of "plausible denialbility": will our denial be plausible, rather than is it TRUE

But none of that is what occurred, and in this case, the issue is not could it have happened differently if the facts were different, but what SHOULD have happened and what DID happen in reality


So by refusing to accept that which is known, you demonstrate my point so very well....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

No, seems rather misdirected in my opinion.

I didn't say the way the information got to the FIA was not an issue, just that it was the information itself which caused a problem for Ferrari, and that information came from one of their own employees.

Any link between the email and the 780-page document is, to date, the subject of speculation. "Pull the other one, it's got bells on it" is not an argument that says otherwise.

---

It very much is an argument that says otherwise. Mclaren themselves set a precedent which, given that, makes a strong argument that having done it once they would do it again.

It is a fact confirmed by Ron Dennis that the email information was used by Mclaren.

Yet Mclaren then claim that they did not look at the 780 page document.

Our argument is that, given what they did with the email information, that is both difficult to accept, unlikely and doubtful.

Mclaren claim that they advised Coughlan to get rid of it, which is in itself the incorrect thing to have done as they should have reported it and not kept quiet. The FIA have already found them guilty of being in possession of documents they shouldn't have had.

To ask us to believe the integrity of Mclaren when

A) They used illegally gained information and have confirmed they did so.
B) They kept quiet about having access to the 780 page document

is beyond reasonable doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Participating in discussions that are seen in those terms by some is why I'm losing my patience.

---

Try getting a sense of humour then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

Your last comment/question was demonstrates why mere speculation proves nothing: Are you able to refute that Mclaren could and would have known..without the email...is no different than saying the FIA could and would have known without the "aid" from Maclaren....or the fact that I shot him in the head, but sooner or later he was going to die anyway, so I should not be held accountable
.
.
.
.

So by refusing to accept that which is known, you demonstrate my point so very well....

---

your first point is valid. because Stepney (allegedly) sent the email blowing the whistle on an illegal floor, there is no way to prove that McLaren would have discovered it themselves

.
.
.
.
.

but, as Arrows pointed out, it was a topic for discussion way before this between journalists so the likelyhood of it being questioned would have been high wouldn't you say?

is that fairer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

How does you believing Ron Dennis in this instance make any difference. Stepney has said "It's not true that I revealed those irregularities." So you pays your money, you takes your choice.

---

It makes a huge difference to the quality of your argument, taking it from plausible to self-contradictory and self-defeating.

I guess those law books I recommended never left the library shelves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

it was a topic for discussion way before this between journalists so the likelyhood of it being questioned would have been high wouldn't you say?

is that fairer?

---

No, because of this.....

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61260

Where Ron Dennis states, and I would like to quote for the benifit of the jury....

"Were it not for Mr Stepney drawing this illegal device to the attention of McLaren ... there is every reason to suppose that Ferrari would have continued to race with an illegal car,"

If Ron himself says that there is every reason to suppose that Ferrari would have continued, then your claim that there was a likelihood of it being questioned without the email seems very weak.

I'd be interested to know how you can claim that, given what Ron has said, unless you don't believe Ron Dennis is being truthful?

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..

---

The moderator here does not like this at all, and sidetracks the discussion into the refutation of possibilities


It is all very simple: What Mclaren was trying to do was NOT burn the source of their information..that lttle piece of info may have been something so obvious, that sooner or later, someone else like the FIA was going to catch it....but why burn your source?



Well you do it if you are honest and have no use for such stuff,

and you do NOT do it, if you are hoping that something much better will pop out in the future and do not want to close the door on such future possibilities

(and their own clandestine activites demonstrate their knowledge of the legality of how they were acting and their intent to take advantage of the situation in the future)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

No, because of this.....

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61260

Where Ron Dennis states, and I would like to quote for the benifit of the jury....

"Were it not for Mr Stepney drawing this illegal device to the attention of McLaren ... there is every reason to suppose that Ferrari would have continued to race with an illegal car,"

If Ron himself says that there is every reason to suppose that Ferrari would have continued, then your claim that there was a likelihood of it being questioned without the email seems very weak.

I'd be interested to know how you can claim that, given what Ron has said, unless you don't believe Ron Dennis is being truthful?

---

nope, we are in complete agreement for once my friend.

Ferrari would have continued to race with an illegal car until they got caught. the only thing that is in dispute is how long it would have taken to uncover this cheating and what would have been the outcome if it was discovered at the end of the season instead of the beginning.

perhaps McLaren done them a favour by informing the FIA instead of letting them be caught with what the FIA have described as an illegal device otherwise they may have been severly penalised.

fair enough, yopu win this one my learned friend :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

Your last comment/question was demonstrates why mere speculation proves nothing:...

---

Exactly :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

nope, we are in complete agreement for once my friend.

Ferrari would have continued to race with an illegal car until they got caught. the only thing that is in dispute is how long it would have taken to uncover this cheating and what would have been the outcome if it was discovered at the end of the season instead of the beginning.

perhaps McLaren done them a favour by informing the FIA instead of letting them be caught with what the FIA have described as an illegal device otherwise they may have been severly penalised.

fair enough, yopu win this one my learned friend :D

---

For the umpteenth time, the Ferrari was not illegal. It has not been disqualified, ergo it is legal.

For the umpteenth time, the FIA have not said that such a device as fitted to the Ferrari was illegal. Whiting makes no reference to Ferrari.

Please provide factual evidence to disprove these statements.

You know, factual evidence, a fact, something we cannot instantly disprove like we do with your previous offerings?

Actually, i'll be kind and give you the whole weekend to strengthen your case.

I've got a race car to sell.

Mike: "I just got the 708 page bible of ferrari on car set up from our secret source..."

RD: "Shut up!! I do not want to hear anymore about this--get your book and get yourself outa here....and do not be using our copy machines emails and so forth about this...."

Mike: "okay...okay..."

RD: "however, we were thinking about making some calibration changes in our wind tunnels...why don't we have a cup of tea and talk about some possibilities.."

Mike: "Sure..let us go..."

RD: "not right now, say in a week or so...."

Yeah that is why you do not burn your informants

many years ago, there was a nut case who would go visit the secret service and fbi almost every day when he was not in the mental hospital..always with some crazy worthless story...but they never closed the door....one day he came in and said someone had a counterfeit operation in a wharehouse right under your noses...so out of boredom, someone started watching from the windows of SS, looking at the closest wharehouse...and guess what...yeah busted!!!

See, one only burns bridges if one never ever intends to use them in the future.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

The moderator here does not like this at all...

---

Correct, because far from being "perfectly obvious" it's mere speculation, and we've established that mere speculation proves nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

For the umpteenth time, the Ferrari was not illegal. It has not been disqualified, ergo it is legal.

For the umpteenth time, the FIA have not said that such a device as fitted to the Ferrari was illegal. Whiting makes no reference to Ferrari.

Please provide factual evidence to disprove these statements.

You know, factual evidence, a fact, something we cannot instantly disprove like we do with your previous offerings?

---

Yeah, but Ron Dennis called it "illegal" so to many posters here, that makes it illegal. RD is their god, his word is final and always truthful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

Yeah, but Ron Dennis called it "illegal" so to many posters here, that makes it illegal. RD is their god, his word is final and always truthful.

---

Indeed :up:

I would like the people calling Ferrari's floor at Australia "illegal", to show me which sporting regulation was being breached .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Correct, because far from being "perfectly obvious" it's mere speculation, and we've established that mere speculation proves nothing.

---

I was refferring to specaulation about facts and possibilities of facts being totally different, not to the mental sate of someone charged with a crime. In the absence of mind reading, one must infer intent from the actions of the person in response to circumstances.

While you have been engaging in "could have" this and that, now refute that "could have".....that is totally different.

What reasons did RD have for not turning in the rat is the only question that should be answered.


There is only ONE reasonable inference and the words right out of his mouth condemn him....he knew it was wrong because he ran and tried to hide the source of the information......flight has always been admissible to prove state of mind.....

But RD did use the info to mcLAren's benefit when he "turned in" the alleged "illegal floor" without disclosure of the source--all he had to do was simple--here is this unsolicted sorry email sent to us by some sorry POS, please Mr. FIA, do something ASAP please about the floors and the rat infestation...

and add in the fact, that if he burned the rat, there would be no possible future "information" popping up, so better to keep one's door open....

One burns a rat when one absolutely has no future use for him, and one keeps quiet about the rat, where future possibilities.....

No amount of :beer: can change this, but tis a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

Yeah, but Ron Dennis called it "illegal" so to many posters here, that makes it illegal. RD is their god, his word is final and always truthful.

---

Utter rubbish!

You find me one forum member praying on his knees to the shrine of the God of Ron and I will eat my hat!


:p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ian McC

Utter rubbish!

You find me one forum member praying on his knees to the shrine of the God of Ron and I will eat my hat!


:p :

---

I agree, none of them are on their knees praying, they are too busy drinking RD's kool aid

:beer:


You should be glad cause that means you do not have to go buy a hat for your dinner tonight :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ian McC

Utter rubbish!

You find me one forum member praying on his knees to the shrine of the God of Ron and I will eat my hat!


:p :

---

Got no mirror at home?! :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Got no mirror at home?! :p :

---

Plenty thanks, still not eating my hat though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ian McC

Utter rubbish!

You find me one forum member praying on his knees to the shrine of the God of Ron and I will eat my hat!


:p :

---

Although I don't have photo evidence, there are a couple of posters on this thread I strongly suspect are worshiping an image of Ron in their McShrines daily (if not more often) ;) This is based entirely on their apparent belief system that Ron is the 2nd perfect being to walk upon the face of the earth.

(p.s. - I don't know if they physically kneel, but from their words they are mentally kneeling to him.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ian McC

Plenty thanks, still not eating my hat though

---

Must be all broken! :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

Although I don't have photo evidence, there are a couple of posters on this thread I strongly suspect are worshiping an image of Ron in their McShrines daily (if not more often) ;) This is based entirely on their apparent belief system that Ron is the 2nd perfect being to walk upon the face of the earth.

(p.s. - I don't know if they physically kneel, but from their words they are mentally kneeling to him.)

---

Are you a psychologist? :p : :rolleyes:

FIA appeals its own decision. That´s one for the books!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinchote

Indeed :up:

I would like the people calling Ferrari's floor at Australia "illegal", to show me which sporting regulation was being breached .

---

as we do not have access to the floor and its fixings, we cannot be 100% accurate in our findings otherwise some wisear*e will start quoting chapter and verse of some legal book about inadmissable evidence etc.

what we do know is the following.

1. Ferrari had a performance advantage in Aus that they didnt have after they modified the car.

2. the FIA said that a device that worked in the manner of the one submitted for referal by McLaren off of allegedly a design of the Ferrari one was illegal against the FIA laws I published earlier in the thread. consequently, the FIA changed how the tests were done to ensure people couldnt have a floor that breached this rule.

the rules have not been changed so why remove the flexible fixing, and take a performance hit, if it was legal? it was either legal and didnt need to be changed or illegal and did. saying that it was only illegal when the tests were changed to reflect the cheat does not mean it was legal before, only that it was againt the rules but they got away with it.

nobody has answered this question yet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

as we do not have access to the floor and its fixings, we cannot be 100% accurate in our findings otherwise some wisear*e will start quoting chapter and verse of some legal book about inadmissable evidence etc.

what we do know is the following.

1. Ferrari had a performance advantage in Aus that they didnt have after they modified the car.

2. the FIA said that a device that worked in the manner of the one submitted for referal by McLaren off of allegedly a design of the Ferrari one was illegal against the FIA laws I published earlier in the thread. consequently, the FIA changed how the tests were done to ensure people couldnt have a floor that breached this rule.

the rules have not been changed so why remove the flexible fixing, and take a performance hit, if it was legal? it was either legal and didnt need to be changed or illegal and did. saying that it was only illegal when the tests were changed to reflect the cheat does not mean it was legal before, only that it was againt the rules but they got away with it.

nobody has answered this question yet

---

The first paragraph of your post answered the question you asked at the bottom so eloquently, it doesn't need any further explanation.

The defence rests it's case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

The first paragraph of your post answered the question you asked at the bottom so eloquently, it doesn't need any further explanation.

The defence rests it's case.

---

you bait the hook, cast the line, wait 1/2 an hour and whooooooshhhhhhhh!! :p :

so, taking the pointless definitive legal arguement aside and resorting to LOGICAL DEDUCTION, how would you answer the question.

Logic, Mr Spock. when you've argued the legalities to the nth degree, we are left with the blindingly obvious answer. it was illegal so they changed it.

why is it so impossible to accept the logical answer? nobody is calling for them to be penalised because it was the first race and lots of teams try to pull a fast one. we know it was illegal, the FIA know it was illegal and I suspect you know it was illegal as well but you got away with it. no big deal, just admit it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

so, taking the pointless definitive legal arguement aside and resorting to LOGICAL DEDUCTION, how would you answer the question.

---

There's the major fault in your logic........

Such things as illegality are defined solely in legal terms.

What surprises me is that someone involved in motor-racing such as your good self doesn't realise that logical deduction as defined by yourself is irrelevant.

I've worked in motor sport for 20 odd years and not once have I witnessed the scrutineers disqualify something because of 'logical deduction'.

They only disqualify when they can prove beyond doubt that a car is illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

as we do not have access to the floor and its fixings, we cannot be 100% accurate in our findings otherwise some wisear*e will start quoting chapter and verse of some legal book about inadmissable evidence etc.

what we do know is the following.

1. Ferrari had a performance advantage in Aus that they didnt have after they modified the car.

2. the FIA said that a device that worked in the manner of the one submitted for referal by McLaren off of allegedly a design of the Ferrari one was illegal against the FIA laws I published earlier in the thread. consequently, the FIA changed how the tests were done to ensure people couldnt have a floor that breached this rule.

the rules have not been changed so why remove the flexible fixing, and take a performance hit, if it was legal? it was either legal and didnt need to be changed or illegal and did. saying that it was only illegal when the tests were changed to reflect the cheat does not mean it was legal before, only that it was againt the rules but they got away with it.

nobody has answered this question yet

---

T

he FIA said clarified the rule, to say the floor, would be included within the definition of movable aero devices, and by now clearly including it, would be illegal...In the absence of clarification, it is impossible to argue that the floor clearly fell within this definiton and the car had passed inspection.........

So what...

Mac is quilty because they not only used the information but failed to disclose the source. The only reasonable explanation is they did not disclose the source was to leave open the door for future little bits of info popping up, because one does not burn a rat where they have future hopes of some more "news"

Mac is also quilty because when the 700 pages showed up, Mac told MC to hide it, burn, shred it, but whatever you do, DONT leave any clues on our computers and copiers....Now if MC were to read this document, understand what it meant, and have a little tea and discussion later about just how does ferrari calibrate and use their wind tunnels, what amount of rear downforce calculations on thos Bridgestone tires...

If MAc had simply said to the FIA, here is this email and here is the 708 page document, makes certain statements and we do not know what to make of it exactly......looks like there is a rat infestation at Ferrari, may be they need to get a barnyard cat....

BTW--this is not speculation about changing facts, this is how one proves the state of mind of an actor--did he know what he was doing was wrong, and these actions of MAC prove exactly that

But some folks have been drinking thie kool aid, and now, you need to start chewing on your hat......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ian McC

Utter rubbish!

You find me one forum member praying on his knees to the shrine of the God of Ron and I will eat my hat!


:p :

---

Does a pair of them count http://www.motorsportforums.com/foru...d.php?t=120419

If so you best get to chewing...oh I forgot, following RD ethical practices, plausible denial, and where not available, implausible denial, and if that don't work then appeal.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

What surprises me is that someone involved in motor-racing such as your good self doesn't realise that logical deduction as defined by yourself is irrelevant.

I've worked in motor sport for 20 odd years and not once have I witnessed the scrutineers disqualify something because of 'logical deduction'.

They only disqualify when they can prove beyond doubt that a car is illegal.

---

tamburello

we are a world away from scrutineering on this forum, aren't we? this is a discussion forum, isn't it?

we are not talking about disqualifying the Ferrari because of a breach of the sporting or technical regulation but merely looking at what we believe the facts to be in this case and drawing logical conclusions. let us not put elements of grandour upon ourselves but look at what the reality probably was otherwise what is the point?

we know that McLaren submitted a design allegedly from stepney as claimed by Couglan for clarification.

we know that if used, such a design would be illegal.

we assume that the design was similar to the questioned part on the Ferrari although it could have been a complete red herring from Nigel which, in the light of this whole debarcle, seems a very remote possibility.

because Ferrari removed the part directly after the clarification, it is logical to assume that the part was infact similar to the design submitted by McLaren and, as submitted in a written statement from the FIA, strictly prohibited under the rules then and now.

if you can give me a logical alternative why they removed it, then we can discuss it but it is most likely that this was the chain of events, is it not.

legal be damned, this is just basic common sense as applied in a friendly discussion on a forum. we have no legal juristriction and have only the information as detailed.

so, in that case, give me your opinion of what happened if it differs from mine but I suspect it doesn't, does it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

Does a pair of them count http://www.motorsportforums.com/foru...d.php?t=120419

If so you best get to chewing...oh I forgot, following RD ethical practices, plausible denial, and where not available, implausible denial, and if that don't work then appeal.....

---

oh, you kill me :laugh:

now, isn't there a train line your supposed to be playing on :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Whiting makes no reference to Ferrari.

---

Why would he make reference to Ferrari? He was responding directly to a request for clarification from McLaren, a request that made no mention of Ferrari, or the Ferrari floor.

McLaren's letter to the FIA said:

Quote:

---

"We would like to consider the installation of a mechanism on the front of our floor, consisting of springs and pivots. 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."

---

Whiting's response:

Quote:

---

"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 basis of McLaren's clarification request may have been information provided by a Ferrari employee, something that the FIA were not made aware of at the time. However, the absence of the name 'Ferrari' in Whiting's response does not alter the fact that the mechanism, as outlined in McLaren's letter was ruled as strictly prohibited by the FIA's technical regulations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Why would he make reference to Ferrari? He was responding directly to a request for clarification from McLaren, a request that made no mention of Ferrari, or the Ferrari floor.

McLaren's letter to the FIA said:


Whiting's response:


The basis of McLaren's clarification request may have been information provided by a Ferrari employee, something that the FIA were not made aware of at the time. However, the absence of the name 'Ferrari' in Whiting's response does not alter the fact that the mechanism, as outlined in McLaren's letter was ruled as strictly prohibited by the FIA's technical regulations.

---

For pure sake of argument, let us all assume that the device was totally and completely illegal, with no question about the fact that it met the testing requirements, and some day some way, FIA was going to figure it all out

Changes nothing in terms of how the information was acquired and the secret manner of acquisition, and indeed, the manner of presentation was so contrived by presenting the ferrari design as though it were something that MAC was going to do, but it was NOT CLEAR to Mac as to whether the design could be used or not, demonstrates again the clear intent to benefit from a leak, and not only benefit from that leak but to keep it so that any future leaks could come into MAC's door as well, by not burning the informant

And if it were so clearly illegal, then Mac should have protested, but instead chose the more devious route, of presenting this "new design" as though MAc was considering it

So anyone's opinion that since it met the test regarding load, then it was not per se illegal, as a moving aero device, but once clarified as being still "strictly prohibited", if it moves the car upward, regardless of whether it meets the exact test so specified....it now is illegal for future use...or whether is was ALWAYS ILLEGAL.... changes nothing as far as the benefit received and the manner in which the information was acquired and used (ie to protect the source for future use...)

Setting aside ethical issues and the fact that the source leaked out, it was a brilliant move by MAc, but then things went awry