britishtrident
|
| posted on 16/10/07 at 06:09 PM |
|
|
Nigel Stepney's letter to Max Moseley - what is really going on?
See forum on Autosport website
http://forums.autosport.com/showthread.php?s=024b2782ad37a6e8772d0ac3aa5d675f&threadid=97229
Quote ---
Nigel Stepney's letter to Max Moseley
Dear President
You and I have known each other for many years and you like I have always had Formula 1 at the centre of our heart. The issues that have arisen have
indeed been very distressing, especially when the media have been leaked information from sources that are not fully aware of the truth. These
accusations have tarnished Formula 1. This has therefore pushed me to write this letter to you to explain the circumstances of events. I'd like
to break the circumstances of events into 3 separate issues which I hope will help clarify the situation for you.
1) My initial doubts
In January of 2007 during the assembly of the new car I first bought up the subject about the reservations I had on the concept and legality of the
front floor system with the Chief Designer Aldo Costa and another 2 senior design personnel at Ferrari. I pointed out to them the various points that
concerned me and what other teams also might eventually pick-upon. The Chief designer said he would look into it. Later on in the month of February a
couple of items had been better disguised before the Australian GP, but these were only cosmetic changes. I asked at the time, if we had asked the FIA
for any clarification on the system which we could do, as defined under Article 2.4 in the Technical Regulations. The response was NO we will go with
the system as it is and take any advantage up to the time any team makes noises to the FIA, at the minimum we will have at least 1 race under our
belts before any action can be taken. Up to mid February I was the person responsible for the legality aspects of the car and each previous year I had
always spoken to the Technical Director about any reservations I had on the legality of the cars, he would then go away to discuss the details and
then come back later with the answers and explain to me where we stood. So this was a normal situation during the course of my duties. I decided in
mid February to step down from my role as Technical Manager for various reasons one of which was this new way of approaching the regulations, I also
declined to accept the responsibility in my new role of Team Performance Manager, of being responsible for the legality of the car, and made it clear
to various other top team representatives that for me the car was illegal in a couple of areas. Nobody took any notice which was very frustrating.
Later on in February I was still not comfortable with this philosophy and contacted Peter Wright to ask him for his technical advice on the subject of
the legality of the front floor system. He said he could give his own advice on the subject but I could only get an official clarification from
Charlie Whiting, I said for now his own comments would be sufficient. Later on I sent Peter an e-mail on the details of the system and laid out my
concerns on the Ferrari's front floor system. I described that for me it did not conform to Article 3.15 in the Technical Regulations and it
could also possibly be conceived as being at the beginning of a crude lever type mass damper.
Peter came back to me a few days later saying it looked very suspicious and asked me how I wanted to handle the situation, I said he could inform
Charlie Whiting but please don't mention where this information came from. Peter also asked me what I wanted and what was I trying to achieve
from doing this and I replied I'm not looking for anything except a clean and fair championship.
Peter informed me about 10 days before the start of the Championship that he had discussed this system with Charlie Whiting, he had asked him where he
had found the source of information but Peter would not tell him, Charlie Whiting said he was aware of some system but not to this extent and would
look further into the subject at the Australian GP. Personally I would have thought that because of the seriousness of the claim that it should have
been looked into BEFORE the event!
2) Technical reasons for raising the issues
I will try to answer the points in Article 2.4 in the Technical Regulations relating to this system so it can be more clearly seen why Ferrari were
not prepared to ask for clarification at the beginning :
a) The front floor is attached to the chassis via a mechanical hinge system at its most rearward point, the most forward support is a body with 1
compression spring and 1 tension spring inside which can be adjusted according to the amount of mass that is fitted to the front floor. There is also
a skirt which seals the floor to the chassis which is made out of rubber and Kevlar to help the flexibility and reduce the friction in the system.
b) This models a complex mass-spring-damper system. The system consists of a mass ,B, suspended on a lever arm, a compression coil spring ,C, and a
tension coil spring ,T. This tension coil spring can be pre-loaded to compensate for the varying amounts of mass, therefore allowing always
equilibrium within the system. A force, F, is applied to the lever arm.
c) There are no immediate implications on other parts of the car for the Ferrari but if system had been allowed it could have meant a huge cost of
development for other teams in such areas as chassis and under trays etc to make way for the provision for storing the system and the variable
quantity of mass.
d) The possible long term consequences of such a system would be quite substantial because the system is in a crude state of development it could mean
the development to chassis the improvement of the hinge system to the main under tray the necessity to increase the quantity of mass in this area
which would depend on how much ballast was available therefore by reducing the weight of other components on the car and the weight distribution
requirements.
e) The precise way in which the car system would enhance the performance of the car is in my view the following salient points :
i. It allows the car to ride over the kerbs of chicanes harder because of the 14-15mm deflection at the leading edge of the floor and disturbing the
car less.
ii. The system would allow for a straighter line through chicanes.
iii. Also a ride and aerodynamic advantage could be obtained because of the spring and mass layout on the front floor with the mass damper coming into
effect.
iv. The front plank wear is reduced therefore allowing the car to run lower at the front which allows a gain and aerodynamic advantage in
efficiency.
v. The car from around 160-180 kms is about 7-8mm lower at the leading edge of the front floor which multiplies nearly up to 19-20mm lower front wing
height at the leading edge. The benefits in terms of ground effects and efficiency would be gained all around the components like turning vanes and
front wing at the reduced height relative to the ground.
The above points could give a serious advantage over the competitor’s cars.
On the Friday of the Australian GP I phoned up Mike Coughlan to ask him how things were going generally and if the FIA had taken any action on any
issues, he told me no it was very quiet so far. I asked him if he had time to look at the other teams cars, he said he had a brief look and asked me
why I wanted to know if the FIA had taken any actions on what issues, so I told him about the e-mail I had sent to the Peter Wright concerning the
front floor system on the Ferrari, he asked me for a copy, so I said I’ll send you a copy of the e-mail I sent to Peter Wright. He asked me what I
wanted and I replied nothing but a clean and fair championship. I suggested he should make his own judgement and then talk to Charlie Whiting to seek
clarification. The rest of the story which unfolded during the event of which I’m sure you're aware of.
I also sent an e-mail to Jo Bauer around the same time of the first e-mail sent to Peter Wright but on another subject. I wanted the FIA to be aware
of what was going on again and treated with the same confidentiality as the other issue.
This e-mail contained points relevant to Articles 2.5 and 3.2 in the technical regulations. I pointed out that there was a possibility of the car when
sitting statically on the 3 reference plane points was not sitting parallel to the FIAs flat horizontal surface. The advantage from doing this is that
you can gain in height relative to the ground on all bodywork facing the ground because by offsetting the 2 front points by -1mm below the reference
plane and the rear point that is +1mm above the reference plane. This in terms of height and advantages gained lowers the front wing between 2-3mm
towards the ground. This may seem a very small number but any way to reduce the front wing and turning vane height to the ground is a performance
advantage. This was subsequently delt with by Charlie Whiting AFTER the Australian GP, but it would have been possible to have modified the cars prior
to the Australian GP.
I would like to add the following remarks :
a) I believe Charlie Whiting acted in the best interests of the sport in the way he handled these issues. I also think he never made any reference to
the mass damper to reduce any possible aggravation or he believed it was never an issue. By making a general across the board decision on the changes
to the regulations no single team was pointed out as having circumnavigated the regulations.
b) The only issues for me are why did he not take action earlier in the event therefore reducing the advantage any team may have had?
c) If McLaren had not asked for clarification of the legality of the Ferrari system would Charlie Whiting still have taken the same action or waited 2
to 3 races or never ?
d) Knowing this information why were the cars allowed through scrutineering when there was possibly some doubt into the eligibility of the cars
presented for scrutineering?
3) Personal involvement
Now we come onto the third issue concerning the Ferrari documents.
I was contemplating my next move in my career and required a new challenge. I had been offered by the new Technical Director of Ferrari the
possibility in the future to be more involved at the initial design and concept stage of the car. I thought about this and decided to gather some
information together to study and try to understand if I could be of any value in this area.
At the same time I was looking for other challenges and also decided to look around in another team where I thought I could make an impact and help
bring a team that was further down the grid to be more successful which is what I had helped be a part of in doing with Ferrari. I chose to approach
the Honda F1 Team but also thought that to achieve my goal I would need some other people. So I thought first I needed a Chief Designer or Technical
Director so I contacted Mike Coughlan.
We met in Barcelona where I was on holiday contemplating my future. I knew Mike and respected his work, the quality of the design and the attention to
detail of the McLaren was next to none and mainly down to him. We talked about how we might integrate into another team and what approach we should
take. I said what my options were at Ferrari and he suggested perhaps if I was thinking of going in the direction of being involved in initial design
and the concept stage that going on a Catia course could be a good idea.
I told him I had prepared some draft contracts which I had in my possession and asked him what terms he would be looking for. I also had documents
from Ferrari on me at the time, which I was using to try and understand if I could make the step from basically a chief mechanic into a more senior
technical roll of which I had never been trained for. Having these Ferrari documents was completely legitimate because I was still with Ferrari.
Mike looked at some of the documents and was obviously interested in them, I said I didn’t think it was a good idea that he should be looking at
these papers. I was obviously wrong to even have let him have access to them. But he said that I could use these in the Catia course. Eventually he
took a small amount of these documents and put them in his bag, I asked what was he going to do with them and he said don't worry nothing. We
then got into the car because it was time to go to the airport, in the car he saw some other documents which he started to read, he then took them all
and pushed them inside his back pack. I didn't think it was a good idea and said you can't do anything with them. He told me don't
worry I won't use any of this stuff.
Mike really had no reason to use any of this information at McLaren and to the best of my knowledge he never contemplated the idea. His only intention
was to help me out. McLaren is a well respected organization and quite capable of winning the championship without any outside help or information,
gained by deceit.
Also you cannot take items from one concept of car design, manufacture them and expect that they are going to benefit the concept of another car
design. There was never any talk or intention either of using this information in any other team.
You have to understand that my computer has been confiscated by Ferrari and therefore I cannot supply any documents to back up my statements and only
an indication of the dates, but your organization will have copies of the original e-mails I sent regarding my concerns.
I would like to make the point that never at any time was there any malice in my actions towards you and FIA. Also it was never my intention to cause
any damage or injury to the reputation of any of the parties involved which I hope is now evident.
In conclusion I accept that perhaps I was nieve but my intentions were to do the best for the sport that I have been involved in for the last 30 year
and more importantly a fair and clean Championship.
Yours sincerely
Nigel Stepney
Copy to:
Mr Ron Dennis
Mr Jean Todt
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
|
|
omega 24 v6
|
| posted on 16/10/07 at 06:35 PM |
|
|
quote:
In conclusion I accept that perhaps I was nieve
Well for a guy with 30 years experience that's a huge understatement.
However the plot also thickens as it would now appear that the fia did indeed know about the illegality of the Ferraris while they were still racing
(and gaining points). After the change of rules they were not in anyway penalized (unlike Mclaren who were penalized for something NOT PROVEN to
benefit their car).
Something still smells rotten but I doubt it'll ever be sorted out. As for Nigel Stepney I wonder what the future holds for him (quick fit
fitter )
If it looks wrong it probably is wrong.
|
|
|
rustybits
|
| posted on 16/10/07 at 06:37 PM |
|
|
So Ferrari cheated with the design of the floor, then Maclaren get a draconian and unprecedented punishment. Something not right there.
More to the point, do you think the floor design could be integrated into a locost?
The big hammer artiste formerly know as skodaman
|
|
|
omega 24 v6
|
| posted on 16/10/07 at 06:44 PM |
|
|
quote:
More to the point, do you think the floor design could be integrated into a locost?
Possibly. If you invite Nigel to afternoon tea and then ask to see his breifcase contents out of interest. Look at the plans and then just stuff them
into your pocket saying something like you'll never use them "of course not."
If it looks wrong it probably is wrong.
|
|
|
v8kid
|
| posted on 16/10/07 at 06:46 PM |
|
|
When irregularaties come to light it is natural to look to involve as many people as possible as part of a damage limitation strategy and this may or
may not be one of those cases.
I doubt anyone outside the F1 inner circle will ever know the truth and I'm sorry to say it has been so overplayed to add interest to a
lacklustre sport that I don't give a hoot.
As for the innocent injured parties? Well they are all professionals and seem to play the field pretty well to me - if anything it has enhanced the
reputation of those who have held up their hands, admitted a fault and got on with it.
Still F1 racing is pretty boring though I get more fun watching our local club events and our annual budget is probablt less than the Ferrarri tea
budget for one race day!!!
|
|
|
phoenix70
|
| posted on 16/10/07 at 06:50 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rustybits
So Ferrari cheated with the design of the floor, then Maclaren get a draconian and unprecedented punishment. Something not right there.
More to the point, do you think the floor design could be integrated into a locost?
Just to correct you a little, the floor Ferrari used in Australia, was NEVER deemed illegal, it passed the appropriate test at the time, it was only
after the tests were altered did Ferrari change the floor design because the old design wouldn't pass the NEW test.
People are trying to make out Ferrari were cheating, when all they were doing was exactly the same as every other team, pushing the boundaries of the
rules.
If you look back in history every teams has done it:
Renault - Mass Damper
Mclaren - Second Brake Pedal
to name but two, both legal system till rules clarification made them illegal.
[Edited on 16/10/07 by phoenix70]
[Edited on 16/10/07 by phoenix70]
|
|
|
carpmart
|
| posted on 16/10/07 at 09:18 PM |
|
|
This really doesn't fill me with any confidence in the whole situation. Naive is a complete understatement! Dishonest is probably much nearer
to the mark!
You only live once - make the most of it!
Radical Clubsport, Kwaker motor
'94 MX5 MK1, 1.8
F10 M5 - 600bhp Daily Hack 
Range Rover Sport - Wife's Car
Mercedes A class - Son's Car
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 16/10/07 at 09:27 PM |
|
|
the question is, are F1 teams meant to follow the letter or the spirit of the law?
|
|
|
brynhamlet
|
| posted on 17/10/07 at 06:37 AM |
|
|
Doesn't every one cheat in racing.
It's part of the fun. When I was production racing motorbikes years ago we used to make little mods outside the rules to get an edge. As long as
the scruttineers didn't catch you it was okay.
It's time everybody gave up winging about F1 breaking rules and just let them get on and race. Since Schumi retired we've had the best
season for years and all this controversy is just recking it
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 17/10/07 at 07:55 AM |
|
|
To me the big difference is that the moving floor was deliberately concealed & disguised. When Chapman built the Lotus 88 it got round the
regulations but was 100% legal, equally the Brabham fan car circumvented the regulations and OK it used the suposed function of being a cooling fan
as a fig leaf but nothing was hidden.
Moveable aerodynamic devices have been banned for decades, to say a moving floor wasn't illegal was a nonsense that clearly came from the very
highest level in the FIA not the scrutes.
What is significant is that the parts were deliberately disguised and hidden from the scrutes, Ferrari have a history of this that MM & the FIA
are well aware of --- be it hidden fuel illegal tanks or traction control sub-routines hidden deep in other functions.
Istr that in all these cases the Ferrari get off without punishment, indeed were allowed to to continue racing for a few races with the illegal
features.
This shows the contempt for the rules of the sport which is embedded in the Maranello culture and preferential treatment of Ferrari by the FIA.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
Hammerhead
|
| posted on 17/10/07 at 09:38 AM |
|
|
I don't even think Stepney wrote that load of durge!
Don't believe everything you read on the net.
|
|
|
u401768
|
| posted on 17/10/07 at 11:00 AM |
|
|
What is significant is that the parts were deliberately disguised and hidden from the scrutes, Ferrari have a history of this that MM & the FIA
are well aware of --- be it hidden fuel illegal tanks or traction control sub-routines hidden deep in other functions.
Britishtrident posted on 17/10/07 at 08:55 AM
*****************************
Traction control software = Benaton, and was apparently ‘Only used for test’ - as if, but not proven
Illegal hidden fuel tanks – Honda and they got a 2 race ban.
In terms of cheating, or working to the bleed edge – they all do it, and always will. This includes Mclaren. They make a car to pass the regs as
tested – but only just pass.
Taking a wider look at the press (none English) Hamalton is being supported by the FIA and Ferrari are being penalized, Alonso is being left out in
the cold by Mclaren, and Ron Denis’s statement of ‘we only had Alonso to race’ fuels this as well.
Its all a mater of perspective. The English press has a biased, the Italian theirs and the Spanish yet anther. All have some truth, but all have a lot
of spin.
A slightly different question – Why was ITV-F1 stopped on the grid walk when no other channels were? How have the annoyed Bernie E?
[Edited on 17/10/07 by u401768]
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 17/10/07 at 11:53 AM |
|
|
That's the best version of things yet. I have to say that if you can read a bit of Italian, Gazetta dello Sport frequently has some very good
stuff in it. Have to go back there sometime... Hmmmm.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 17/10/07 at 12:10 PM |
|
|
Re ITV grid walk Martin B and JYS were quite closely associated with regard to the BRDC and Silverstone.
Mark Blundell and Tony Jardine are also on the current BRDC board.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 17/10/07 at 12:14 PM |
|
|
What ever the politics --- the Ferrari moving floor was very clever.
As Oppenheimer said when learned how Teller had figured out how to build a H Bomb that wasn't the size of a train.
"You have got to admit it is a sweet solution"
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 17/10/07 at 02:58 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by phoenix70
quote:
Originally posted by rustybits
So Ferrari cheated with the design of the floor, then Maclaren get a draconian and unprecedented punishment. Something not right there.
More to the point, do you think the floor design could be integrated into a locost?
Just to correct you a little, the floor Ferrari used in Australia, was NEVER deemed illegal, it passed the appropriate test at the time, it was only
after the tests were altered did Ferrari change the floor design because the old design wouldn't pass the NEW test.
People are trying to make out Ferrari were cheating, when all they were doing was exactly the same as every other team, pushing the boundaries of the
rules.
If you look back in history every teams has done it:
Renault - Mass Damper
Mclaren - Second Brake Pedal
to name but two, both legal system till rules clarification made them illegal.
[Edited on 16/10/07 by phoenix70]
[Edited on 16/10/07 by phoenix70]
The Ferrari floor was illegal, that is why they only used it in Australia as it would not pass the test that was introduced after that. To say
anything else is to show a lack of understanding. The test was changed to make sure the rule was enforced effectively. Ferrari had to change their
floor to comply, just because something passes a test which does not check things thoroughly enough does not make them legal, had the FIA looked
properly in Australia the car would not have been allowed to race in the format it was in, but it was a Ferrari and therefore OK.
The mass damper and the dual brake pedals were both legal at the time of their use. Certain teams could not replicate their benefits and therefore
asked for them to be made illegal which is what happened. There was one particular team whose cars are red involved in this. The difference with these
and the Ferrari floor is very straightforward, both Renault and McLaren had consulted with the technical people at the FIA about the things they were
running and been told they were OK, Ferrari did not ask about their moving floor as they knew they would not be allowed to use it and the test would
have been changed sooner than it was had the FIA known how the floor worked.
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
phoenix70
|
| posted on 17/10/07 at 08:27 PM |
|
|
quote:
The Ferrari floor was illegal, that is why they only used it in Australia as it would not pass the test that was introduced after that. To say
anything else is to show a lack of understanding. The test was changed to make sure the rule was enforced effectively.
Have you actually read what you wrote?
How can something be illegal when it passes the CURRENT test because it won't pass the NEW test.
The test on the floor are deflection tests, that check how far the floor moves when a force is applied to it, AFTER Australia the force applied was
INCREASED from 500 newtons to 2000 newtons, meaning the Ferrari would not pass it.
quote:
The mass damper and the dual brake pedals were both legal at the time of their use.
Yes so was Ferrari's floor, it was only a change in the test that meant it no longer complied with the regulations.
quote:
The difference with these and the Ferrari floor is very straightforward, both Renault and McLaren had consulted with the technical people at the FIA
about the things they were running and been told they were OK, Ferrari did not ask about their moving floor as they knew they would not be allowed to
use it and the test would have been changed sooner than it was had the FIA known how the floor worked.
The reason that they didn't need to go to FIA, is every team has a flexible floor and have had for several year (Why do you think it's a
test), Ferrari came up with a way to gain a benefit from it, like any good team would, in fact BMW were running a similar system and had to change
thier floor too, a fact that people Conveniently forget.
Like I said before, in F1 if you are not stretching the rules then you won't be a winning team.
[Edited on 17/10/07 by phoenix70]
|
|
|
Russ-Turner
|
| posted on 17/10/07 at 09:17 PM |
|
|
Everybody 'cheats' and does their upmost to circumnavigate the rules throughout motorsport, everybody!
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 17/10/07 at 09:35 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by phoenix70
quote:
The Ferrari floor was illegal, that is why they only used it in Australia as it would not pass the test that was introduced after that. To say
anything else is to show a lack of understanding. The test was changed to make sure the rule was enforced effectively.
Have you actually read what you wrote?
How can something be illegal when it passes the CURRENT test because it won't pass the NEW test.
The test on the floor are deflection tests, that check how far the floor moves when a force is applied to it, AFTER Australia the force applied was
INCREASED from 500 newtons to 2000 newtons, meaning the Ferrari would not pass it.
quote:
The mass damper and the dual brake pedals were both legal at the time of their use.
Yes so was Ferrari's floor, it was only a change in the test that meant it no longer complied with the regulations.
quote:
The difference with these and the Ferrari floor is very straightforward, both Renault and McLaren had consulted with the technical people at the FIA
about the things they were running and been told they were OK, Ferrari did not ask about their moving floor as they knew they would not be allowed to
use it and the test would have been changed sooner than it was had the FIA known how the floor worked.
The reason that they didn't need to go to FIA, is every team has a flexible floor and have had for several year (Why do you think it's a
test), Ferrari came up with a way to gain a benefit from it, like any good team would, in fact BMW were running a similar system and had to change
thier floor too, a fact that people Conveniently forget.
Like I said before, in F1 if you are not stretching the rules then you won't be a winning team.
[Edited on 17/10/07 by phoenix70]
I think you are conflating (been wanting to use that word for a while  ) regulation and test. The initial quote makes more sense than your
interpretation.
The test isn't the definition of the regulation - the regulation wasn't changed - it said no part of the body can move to give an
aerodynamic advantage or some such - the test was changed because it was found that a team was cheating and the test being used wasn't adequate
and was changed to stop the cheating.
Whether 'cheating' is a fact of life or not in F1, once caught the punishments should be fair and the same for every team. It's the
apparent lack of fairness that is causing the outcry in this case. If there really is one rule for Ferrari and another harsher one for the rest that
is the real problem that needs to be fixed.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 17/10/07 at 09:41 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Russ-Turner
Everybody 'cheats' and does their upmost to circumnavigate the rules throughout motorsport, everybody!
I disagree, or maybe we agree but don't use the same definitions.
Everyone in motorsport reads the regulations and tries to find loopholes and areas not considered, yes. But cheating is knowingly breaking a
regulation and trying to hide the fact in my book. I don't believe that routinely happens in every team or indeed in all motorsport. In fact
it's rather rare outside F1 because the punishments tend to be rather harsh (see what happened to Toyota in Rallying for example)
[Edited on 17/10/07 by iank]
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 17/10/07 at 11:33 PM |
|
|
Thanks iank - you have described it perfectly. The floor, in common with other parts is only allowed to deflect a certain amount. Ferrari presumably
realised that as the load used by the FIA to test for deflection was a lot lower than the load exerted by aerodynamic forces that they could include a
spring mechanism with a spring load high enough to ensure the measured movement during the test was within the limits, but that the actual movement
when running the car gained an aerodynamic, and therefore performance, benefit. This involved the floor moving by an amount which was illegal by any
way of defining the rule, it was just that it didn't show up in the test. Had it been legal all along it would still have been legal with the
new test, but the only way Ferrari could pass the test was by changing the design to take out the deflection.
pheonix70, your argument is the same as saying that it would be quite legal to have a V10 engine of 3125cc capacity as long as the FIA measurement for
it only involved measuring the capacity of eight cylinders as that is what the rules allow. The reasoning you apply for Ferrari not asking the FIA is
fundamentally wrong, teams go to the FIA for clarification of rules when they come up with something new which is not covered by the rule book
specifically to find out if there might be a problem which would get them disqualified at scrutineering stage or later if another team complained.
Ferrari did not do this with the floor for two reasons, one being that they knew they could get away with it as long as nobody told the FIA what they
were doing as it would pas the tests, secondly, had they asked they would have been given a very simple answer which would have been, no, it was
against the rules specifically as they were written at the time as it formed a moving aerodynamic device which everyone knew to be illegal.
I have not forgotten that BMW did the same, but they haven't complained about someone in their team giving away information to a competitor have
they?
There is a difference between stretching the rules, finding potential loopholes and checking if they can be exploited, and cheating. McLaren and
Renault have done the former. Ferrari have done the latter.
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 17/10/07 at 11:59 PM |
|
|
Please; the teams are all the same - they trade the same staff year after year for crying out loud - and if you can't admit that, there's
not much we can do is there?
We are all hoping for a lax interpretation of the rules at SVA or MOT time aren't we?
|
|
|
Rob Palin
|
| posted on 18/10/07 at 06:41 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RK
Please; the teams are all the same - they trade the same staff year after year for crying out loud - and if you can't admit that, there's
not much we can do is there?
No they are not all the same. Speaking as one of those staff members i can speak with a little authority on that.
There is a great deal of movement between teams and so you do find out a lot about what various teams are doing. You don't always get a 780
page dossier explaining it in great detail, but first hand accounts from the people that were actively employed in doing it are usually sufficient.
As someone else has explained, there is surely a distinct difference between attempting to exploit weakness in definition in the rules and
deliberately concealing an explicit violation of those rules with respect to the means by which compliance to them is tested.
[Edited on 18/10/07 by Rob Palin]
|
|
|
u401768
|
| posted on 18/10/07 at 09:34 AM |
|
|
pheonix70, your argument is the same as saying that it would be quite legal to have a V10 engine of 3125cc capacity as long as the FIA measurement for
it only involved measuring the capacity of eight cylinders as that is what the rules allow. The reasoning you apply for Ferrari not asking the FIA is
fundamentally wrong, teams go to the FIA for clarification of rules when they come up with something new which is not covered by the rule book
specifically to find out if there might be a problem which would get them disqualified at scrutineering stage or later if another team complained.
Ferrari did not do this with the floor for two reasons, one being that they knew they could get away with it as long as nobody told the FIA what they
were doing as it would pas the tests, secondly, had they asked they would have been given a very simple answer which would have been, no, it was
against the rules specifically as they were written at the time as it formed a moving aerodynamic device which everyone knew to be illegal.
I have not forgotten that BMW did the same, but they haven't complained about someone in their team giving away information to a competitor have
they?
There is a difference between stretching the rules, finding potential loopholes and checking if they can be exploited, and cheating. McLaren and
Renault have done the former. Ferrari have done the latter.
Andyps posted on 18/10/07 at 12:33 AM
**********************************
If I remember correctly, the FIA was never contacted with regards the third brake pedal until it has photographed, where upon it was outlawed as the
description of ‘toque control to the inner wheel’ was found wonting, primeraly as A) the driver had no method of know where the torque should go
And B) the car having a very advanced limited slip diff
In terms of all teams cheat – they do. In the days of turbos, McLaren, lotus and Brabham all had water cooled brakes. When sideskirts were banned
McLaren introduced the hydraulic lowering suspension – it confirmed when in the pit, and that’s it. When this was banned (as being drive initiated)
they came up with the concept of a long soft spring, and a short hard sping. Once the car got to around 40MPH, the soft spring was compressed to
no-long have any effect. The side benefit was very good drive of the line.
None of these things would have ever been cleared, as they were directly against the rules.
Ferrari did clear the fuel injected turbo charger (where fuel was injected to keep the turbo spinning) and a protest was lodged, claiming it was a 2nd
engine, by McLaren/R Dennis. (That needle match has been going on for years, but have no idea where/who started it)
To win, they all take a chance on bending the regs. Every year each and every team have sections of the car declared illegal on the initial
scrutineering, but as this is pre season, no one cares. To win all the top teams bend the rules to the point of breaking, or just cheat and hope to
not get caught:-
Point in case 1:- a very famous incident in Nascar, where the scrutineers found 350 irregularities and illegal things on the championship leading
car, where upon the driver said your’d best make that 351 and drove the car away with no fuel tank – as they had a hidden one in the roll cage bottom
bar with 2 gallons of fuel
Point in case 2:- Brabham had lead filled body parts, and seat. When the car was weighed it had these parts, and was the reason that spot checks were
introduced. We have Mr B Ecolstone to thank for that cheat
Wheres there is so much money at stake they will all bend the rules. Its a fact of life. So just sit back and enjoy a great last race. So whats the
odds on a 3 way tie then? (Kim to win, Alonso to come 3rd and Hamaton 5)
[Edited on 18/10/07 by u401768]
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 18/10/07 at 02:29 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by u401768If I remember correctly, the FIA was never contacted with regards the third brake pedal until it has
photographed, where upon it was outlawed as the description of ‘toque control to the inner wheel’ was found wonting, primeraly as A) the driver had no
method of know where the torque should go
And B) the car having a very advanced limited slip diff
I know that it is an internet source and therefore not guaranteed 10% accurate, but have a read of
this
Sure, they all push the rules, and have in the past probably all broken them. It was said in 1976 (another year when there were lots of complaints and
points taken away for technical infringements) that if a car was built to fully comply with the regulations that it would not actually have been able
to move.
I think that are probably less instances of deliberate rule breaking now than previously but I am sure I am not the only one who remembers towards the
end of the 1999 season when Ferrari were found to have illegal barge boards on their car during the penultimate race, Ross Brawn standing before the
TV cameras explaining and demonstrating how the parts were illegal, something he also explained to Patrick Head of Williams in a private conversation.
In other words, they had run illegal parts. Somehow, a week or so later they managed to convince an FIA court that the part was actually intended to
be legal, but they made it wrong - by a factor of almost 10mm! Now, on this forum people talk about making a chassis from metal sticks on a piece of
wood in their own garage and get better dimensional accuracy than this so I do not for one second believe that Ferrari had such lax processes on the
production of F1 cars. Trouble is, the FIA believed them.
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
