Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 97
  1. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    7,834
    Like
    80
    Liked 466 Times in 368 Posts
    So , now I understand why he did it .
    He was going for a piece of virgin track to start on , more like the grid .

    And , now I understand why there was a first , then second penalty , as you are not allowed to stop in the grid lane unless you are performing a practice start . He had stopped , but went out farther to perform the start .

    But , I also understand that a similar incident had occurred with Leclerc earlier this year in Spa when he was cited for not performing his recon lap fast enough , but was found to have done a practice start somewhere around the lap .
    In that case the race director's notes had also shown the drivers where they could try the start , and Leclerc had obviously breached the rule , however , somehow , instead of being punished , it was seen only as reasoning that a punishment for too long a lap not to be handed out .

    That's not very consistent , and a little hard to defend with a "too much mayhem" argument , as it was before the race .
    Last edited by Bagwan; 30th September 2020 at 18:09.

  2. #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,531
    Like
    107
    Liked 141 Times in 95 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    i just heard Toto Wolff was offered the F1 CEO job but Ferrari vetoed his appointment which led to Domenicalli's appointment. F1 has missed a great opportunity there l think. Can you imagine how efficiently and fair F1 may have become with Wolff in charge? I think it is a huge missed opportunity. But he may fill that position in the future.

    I applaud Domenicalli's appointment but the optics looks too Ferrari dominated appointments. We have the FIA president, the F1 sporting director and the new F1 CEO all previous Ferrari staff. I fail to see how Liberty think this was a wise choice of selection. They have open the door to more Ferrari favoritism criticism in the future surely.

    Yep, my thoughts also. The two biggest positions of power now held by Ferrari men. I'm sure Domenicalle will be impartial though, after all its not like Todt has ever let Ferrari away with murder or shown any bias with the punishments,NDA's etc for any of their shenanigans.

    In all seriousness... It wouldnt surprise me at all if we were to see a proper resurgence and dominant spell from Ferrari within the next 2-3 years, the new regs will be a complete reset and they have their men in both key positions now. The early signs are there.. IMO at least.

  3. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    2,145
    Like
    1
    Liked 509 Times in 406 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Zico View Post
    Yep, my thoughts also. The two biggest positions of power now held by Ferrari men. I'm sure Domenicalle will be impartial though, after all its not like Todt has ever let Ferrari away with murder or shown any bias with the punishments,NDA's etc for any of their shenanigans.

    In all seriousness... It wouldnt surprise me at all if we were to see a proper resurgence and dominant spell from Ferrari within the next 2-3 years, the new regs will be a complete reset and they have their men in both key positions now. The early signs are there.. IMO at least.
    Sorry, l beg to differ. Ferrari's engine infraction was as serious as the Mclaren Ferrari-gate of 2003, where Mclare was stripped of their constructors points and fined millions. But Ferrari got away scot-free with their constructor points intact and no monetary fines. Also the details of their wrong doing was covered up. Which other team, on the grid can enjoy such protection?

    While Dominecalli is a respectable man by all accounts, he is Italian and a Ferrari man. And when it comes to it, when he shall be faced with taking a legitimate action that would be detrimental to the Italian national F1 team, you can bloody well guess where he would be leaning.

    That is why l thought a fairer appointment would be someone with a greater degree of neutrality. To be honest, l don't understand why Chase is stepping back. He is doing a great job.
    Last edited by Nitrodaze; 30th September 2020 at 17:17.
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

  4. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,531
    Like
    107
    Liked 141 Times in 95 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    Sorry, l beg to differ. Ferrari's engine infraction was as serious as the Mclaren Ferrari-gate of 2003, where Mclare was stripped of their constructors points and fined millions. But Ferrari got away scot-free with their constructor points intact and no monetary fines. Also the details of their wrong doing was covered up. Which other team, on the grid can enjoy such protection?......

    I dont think you do beg to differ... but I should have made my attempt at sarcasm far clearer.

  5. #85
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,488
    Like
    196
    Liked 119 Times in 93 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    Sorry, l beg to differ. Ferrari's engine infraction was as serious as the Mclaren Ferrari-gate of 2003, where Mclare was stripped of their constructors points and fined millions. But Ferrari got away scot-free with their constructor points intact and no monetary fines. Also the details of their wrong doing was covered up. Which other team, on the grid can enjoy such protection?
    McLaren was also initially acquited before the FIA World Council in 2007 (not 2003, as you stated). The only reason this was turned into a conviction was because Ron Dennis came forward after Alonso tried to blackmail him.
    Apparently, the FIA did not have such fortune this time around and therefore lacked conclusive evidence to go after Ferrari lock, stock and barrel.
    Considering we still know very little of the exact nature of Ferrari's wrongdoing last year (other than that it had something to do with the fuel flow), I think your conclusion that it was as bad as spygate is somewhat ambitious. McLaren didn't just break the rules of F1, as Ferrari seem to have done last year, but actively stole the intellectual property of a competitor, which is not just an infringement of F1 rules, but a criminal offense in most countries.

    However, I agree with you that it would have been better to appoint someone without strong Ferrari ties to head F1.
    Last edited by gm99; 30th September 2020 at 17:38.
    Oct. 31, 1999 - one of the blackest days in motorsports.

  6. #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    2,145
    Like
    1
    Liked 509 Times in 406 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Zico View Post
    I dont think you do beg to differ... but I should have made my attempt at sarcasm far clearer.
    You are quite right, l took your post literally. :-)
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

  7. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    2,145
    Like
    1
    Liked 509 Times in 406 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by gm99 View Post
    McLaren was also initially acquited before the FIA World Council in 2007 (not 2003, as you stated). The only reason this was turned into a conviction was because Ron Dennis came forward after Alonso tried to blackmail him.
    Apparently, the FIA did not have such fortune this time around and therefore lacked conclusive evidence to go after Ferrari lock, stock and barrel.
    Considering we still know very little of the exact nature of Ferrari's wrongdoing last year (other than that it had something to do with the fuel flow), I think your conclusion that it was as bad as spygate is somewhat ambitious. McLaren didn't just break the rules of F1, as Ferrari seem to have done last year, but actively stole the intellectual property of a competitor, which is not just an infringement of F1 rules, but a criminal offense in most countries.

    However, I agree with you that it would have been better to appoint someone without strong Ferrari ties to head F1.
    Same difference, they both cheated and circumvented the rules. How Ferrari's designs documents ended up in Mclaren was not orchestrated by the team par se. it got into the team via an unscrupulous staff without the teams initial knowledge. So it is strong language to say they stole. The fact of the matter is we know the fine details of that event. We cannot say the same for the Ferrari engine infraction. So, in a sense, you cannot argue the difference between both cases cited.

    Different FIA Presidents, different transparency. You have to also take note that it was an English FIA president and an English F1 team involved in Ferrari-gate. As oppose to an ex-Ferrari team boss FIA president and the Ferrari team in the Ferrari-engine-gate event. As my dear American friends would say; GO FIGURE!
    Last edited by Nitrodaze; 30th September 2020 at 20:05.
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

  8. #88
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,488
    Like
    196
    Liked 119 Times in 93 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    Same difference, they both cheated and circumvented the rules. How Ferrari's designs documents ended up in Mclaren was not orchestrated by the team par se. it got into the team via an unscrupulous staff without the teams initial knowledge. So it is strong language to say they stole. The fact of the matter is we know the fine details of that event. We cannot say the same for the Ferrari engine infraction. So, in a sense, you cannot argue the difference between both cases cited.
    But neither can you argue the similarity for the very same reason
    I think there is a difference between cheating to gain an unfair advantage (like Ferrari seem to have done last year, or Tyrrell in 1984, or BAR in 2005) and doing that plus weakening another team at the same time. This is what McLaren did in 2007, because they didn't just use Ferrari's documents to improve their own performance, but also to protest the legality of the Ferrari car.

    Again, I agree with you that Todt's FIA handled the Ferrari case very badly. I have never heard of an agreement between the governing body and a competitor that is additionally subject to a non-disclosure clause. It should have been brought before the WMSC. If the evidence had been enough to convict Ferrari, they would most likely have got a severe punishment along the lines you suggested. If there had been no substantial proof of Ferrari cheating, they should have been acquited "in dubio pro reo". That's what Mosley would have done, but as he writes in his autobiography, Todt is more risk-adverse.
    Oct. 31, 1999 - one of the blackest days in motorsports.

  9. #89
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    2,145
    Like
    1
    Liked 509 Times in 406 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by gm99 View Post
    But neither can you argue the similarity for the very same reason

    Again, I agree with you that Todt's FIA handled the Ferrari case very badly. I have never heard of an agreement between the governing body and a competitor that is additionally subject to a non-disclosure clause. It should have been brought before the WMSC. If the evidence had been enough to convict Ferrari, they would most likely have got a severe punishment along the lines you suggested. If there had been no substantial proof of Ferrari cheating, they should have been acquited "in dubio pro reo". That's what Mosley would have done, but as he writes in his autobiography, Todt is more risk-adverse.
    At least we agree on something.
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

  10. #90
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    2,145
    Like
    1
    Liked 509 Times in 406 Posts
    It is clear now that Toto is staying at Petronas Mercedes for the foreseeable future. In what capacity is unclear.
    Last edited by Nitrodaze; 1st October 2020 at 17:11.
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •