iank
|
| posted on 14/9/07 at 07:42 AM |
|
|
Must admit I prefer WRC these days, F1 has seemed rather boring for a while.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 14/9/07 at 08:00 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RK
Bernie is behind it. I have no proof, but who has paid him all these years? Who sponsors Ferrari? Is any other car on the grid backed by a cigarette
maker - whom he has supported at every turn. He is a snake. The whole thing is a sham.
And if motor racing, F1 that is, is crooked, what is cycling?
Ferrari is FIAT
McLaren is almost but not quite Daimler-Chrysler.
Bernie dosen't need to be behind it he makes money no matter what happens in F1, he would make the most money from close 4 way fight in which
Hamilton wins from the other three by a single point..
The elephant in the room is the son of Black Shirt, who has quietly hidden in a corner.
What right do the Italian "Communications Police" have to read emails between F1 drivers.
|
|
|
gingerprince
|
| posted on 14/9/07 at 08:06 AM |
|
|
This smacks a bit of...
 
Dr Evil vs Mclaren
|
|
|
AndyH
|
| posted on 14/9/07 at 09:33 AM |
|
|
F1 is falling apart the seams just as it was starting to regain some of its former glory.
Why?
It doesn't matter which teams are competitive, but when Ferrari loose..........
This smacks of a Ferrari set up:
leaked documents
Maclaren honouring the gentlemens agreement and it not being acted on
Ferrari moaning about Maclaren cheating
Oh Perleeeeeese
It could have been Williams or any other team that was winning.
The people that run the sport/business should have no ties whatsoever to any team or circuit, otherwise how can they be seen to be fair and above
board.
People will put up with human error but corruption on this level.............
Something has got to give.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 14/9/07 at 10:24 AM |
|
|
Ferrari always have had to have a bette noir and have enough influence in high circles to use the Italian police for thier own ends,it used to be
Colin Chapman who was always under threat of arrest if he set foot in Italy.
For years Jim Clark was under the same threat after the 1962 Italian GP fatal acident with Von Tripps works Ferrari.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 14/9/07 at 10:30 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Russ-Turner
It amazes me that a McLaren employee is found in possesion of Ferrari information and Ferrari and the F.I.A. are the bad guys!
istr an incident a few years ago where a photographer working for a certain team was caught breaking in to another teams garage.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
u401768
|
| posted on 14/9/07 at 11:51 AM |
|
|
So when Ferrari won everything in 2004, the change in regulations wasn’t to hurt them then, change in points to stop Schui from winning faster,
etc...They are all as bad, and they all cheat - its been that way for the last 30 years. There were also the accusations between Williams/Mclaren in
the 90's - some one wins and the rest will see if there is a way they can get one over on them.
|
|
|
locogeoff
|
| posted on 14/9/07 at 12:13 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
Ferrari always have had to have a bette noir and have enough influence in high circles to use the Italian police for thier own ends,it used to be
Colin Chapman who was always under threat of arrest if he set foot in Italy.
For years Jim Clark was under the same threat after the 1962 Italian GP fatal acident with Von Tripps works Ferrari.
That's Italian law, remember when Senna died Williams where under the same threat.
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 14/9/07 at 12:14 PM |
|
|
What bemuses me slightly is this, a Mclaren employee receives Ferrari data seemingly off his own back without management knowledge yet Mclaren get
held accountable for their employees action and therefore the team is deemed to have transgressed the rules.
Surely if Mclaren are deemed to be accountable for all their employees actions though, then Ferrari should be to, ie it was actually Ferrari
themselves, as a team, who gave Mclaren the data, not Stepney working in isolation! How can it be that on one side the team is responsible, yet the
other not?
I also think there's something extremely fishy about the outcome, if Mclaren really did enough wrong to justify a $100m fine and no contstructor
points this year (they are OK next year BTW), then you'd have to assume the car pace benefitted substantially, in which case why are Ferrari not
up in arms that the Mclaren drivers are still top of the pile leaving Ferrari (or FIAt as I will forever now call them  ) ?
My personal take on it is that the FIA have either taken Mclaren to the cleaners for a minor transgression for political reasons, or there'll be
something else that comes out of this that we're not currently aware of where the Mclaren team have been doing something far worse or blatantly
lying about knowing of these documents etc, but its something that hasnt actually had a direct effect on the car's pace. My bet is on the
former.
|
|
|
locogeoff
|
| posted on 14/9/07 at 12:16 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
The elephant in the room is the son of Black Shirt, who has quietly hidden in a corner.
What right do the Italian "Communications Police" have to read emails between F1 drivers.
The Communications police have the right when an apparent imfringement of sporting regulations has been made, you either play by the rules or you go
and play elsewhere.
Please pardon my ignorance but who is son of black shirt?
[Edited on 14/9/07 by locogeoff]
|
|
|
omega 24 v6
|
| posted on 14/9/07 at 03:16 PM |
|
|
quote:
Ferrari is FIAT
Ahem surely you've got that arse about face. I'd have thought that the fiat funds are what keeps ferrari going IMHO
If it looks wrong it probably is wrong.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 14/9/07 at 03:45 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by locogeoff
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
The elephant in the room is the son of Black Shirt, who has quietly hidden in a corner.
What right do the Italian "Communications Police" have to read emails between F1 drivers.
The Communications police have the right when an apparent imfringement of sporting regulations has been made, you either play by the rules or you go
and play elsewhere.
Please pardon my ignorance but who is son of black shirt?
[Edited on 14/9/07 by locogeoff]
Mad Max is son of Oswald Moseley and Diana Mittford, They married in secret in 1936, in the Berlin home of Nazi chief Joseph Goebbels. Adolf Hitler
was one of the guests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Mosley#Wives.2C_women_and_children
His mum was on Desert Island Discs about four years back recounting what a nice charming man Hitler was.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
locogeoff
|
| posted on 14/9/07 at 05:14 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisGamlin
What bemuses me slightly is this, a Mclaren employee receives Ferrari data seemingly off his own back without management knowledge yet Mclaren get
held accountable for their employees action and therefore the team is deemed to have transgressed the rules.
Surely if Mclaren are deemed to be accountable for all their employees actions though, then Ferrari should be to, ie it was actually Ferrari
themselves, as a team, who gave Mclaren the data, not Stepney working in isolation! How can it be that on one side the team is responsible, yet the
other not?
I also think there's something extremely fishy about the outcome, if Mclaren really did enough wrong to justify a $100m fine and no contstructor
points this year (they are OK next year BTW), then you'd have to assume the car pace benefitted substantially, in which case why are Ferrari not
up in arms that the Mclaren drivers are still top of the pile leaving Ferrari (or FIAt as I will forever now call them ) ?
My personal take on it is that the FIA have either taken Mclaren to the cleaners for a minor transgression for political reasons, or there'll be
something else that comes out of this that we're not currently aware of where the Mclaren team have been doing something far worse or blatantly
lying about knowing of these documents etc, but its something that hasnt actually had a direct effect on the car's pace. My bet is on the
former.
I believe the key to this whole matter is the fact that Mike Coughlan has said he took the information to a CEO of McLaren (not Ron Dennis BTW) and
then they used the information to lodge the dodgy floor issue whilst keeping stum about the source, therefore it became a team issue. Wheras Stepney
did not approach the Ferrari board and OK the leaking of the document therefore he acted as an individual. Also when challenged after the leaked
document became known to the authorities McLaren claimed they made no use of the info, now on the dodgy floor issue I feel using the insider info was
just, however I believe a beneficial performance advantage was gained, getting into the realms of being a bit dodgey now, the big no no has been lying
to the FIA about using the info to beneficial effect, which has come out of the communications audit I think this will be confirmed over the comming
days as the details get confirmed
cheers Trident, I knew who Mosely's old man was but didn't know any of the historical detail
[Edited on 14/9/07 by locogeoff]
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 14/9/07 at 10:29 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by locogeoff
In short, McLaren cheated,
I have read the complete FIA document and cannnot find any evidence presented by the FIA to back up this statement. Please can you tell me where it
says this as I obviously missed it.
The only way McLaren appear to have benefitted from thei information they received is that they discovered that Ferrari were using what they
considered to be an illegal floor. McLaren presented a similar design to the FIA to ask if it would be legal and were told it wasn't. The FIA
then changed their test procedure when measuring deflection of the floor and found that the Ferrari (and BMW) floor was illegal so had to be changed.
If the floor gave Ferrari a benefit McLaren then benfitted as it increased the performance differential they already had from Ferrari.
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
locogeoff
|
| posted on 14/9/07 at 11:01 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyps
quote:
Originally posted by locogeoff
In short, McLaren cheated,
I have read the complete FIA document and cannnot find any evidence presented by the FIA to back up this statement. Please can you tell me where it
says this as I obviously missed it.
The only way McLaren appear to have benefitted from thei information they received is that they discovered that Ferrari were using what they
considered to be an illegal floor. McLaren presented a similar design to the FIA to ask if it would be legal and were told it wasn't. The FIA
then changed their test procedure when measuring deflection of the floor and found that the Ferrari (and BMW) floor was illegal so had to be changed.
If the floor gave Ferrari a benefit McLaren then benfitted as it increased the performance differential they already had from Ferrari.
My statement was made before the official announcement and based on evidence I had at the time, however on this evenings news there was reports of
Alonso refering to using intellectual property of Ferrari (the use of gas mixtures for filling tyres) contained in the leaked document hence I would
say the cheating accusation can still stand.
Having started to read the document myself I would draw your attention to sections 3.4, 3.13, and 3.18 as examples of the above.
[Edited on 14/9/07 by locogeoff]
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 15/9/07 at 04:00 AM |
|
|
A certain ciggy maker is Ferrari, not Fiat. He who has the money, has the stick. Industrial espionage is one of the oldest games in the book, probably
a close second to you-know-what as the oldest profession - "hey, can you show me that wheel thing you made?"
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 15/9/07 at 11:18 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by locogeoff
My statement was made before the official announcement and based on evidence I had at the time, however on this evenings news there was reports of
Alonso refering to using intellectual property of Ferrari (the use of gas mixtures for filling tyres) contained in the leaked document hence I would
say the cheating accusation can still stand.
Having started to read the document myself I would draw your attention to sections 3.4, 3.13, and 3.18 as examples of the above.
[Edited on 14/9/07 by locogeoff]
My interpretation of this section is that they did not actually use the gas:
quote:
from the FIA document
3.16 Although the e-mail exchange between Mr. Alonso and Mr. de la Rosa makes
clear that they both were enthusiastic about trying the gas apparently used by
Ferrari in its tyres, Mr de la Rosa's evidence to the WMSC was that he, on his
own, decided to explore with a Bridgestone engineer whether the McLaren team
should try this gas. He states that he had no other conversations with any other
specialist staff within McLaren. His evidence is that the Bridgestone engineer in
question doubted whether the gas would confer an advantage upon McLaren.
According to Mr de la Rosa, without further consultation with anyone else at
McLaren, and despite the fact that this had apparently been successfully used at
Ferrari, the idea was dropped and no actual attempt was made to test the gas in the tyres used by McLaren.
If you can put a different interpretation on it, please explain.
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
jollygreengiant
|
| posted on 15/9/07 at 12:08 PM |
|
|
Also consider that, 'documents relating to the technical detail of the ferrari's, that were in couchlans possesion, were shown to ferrari
who agreed that the documents were 'roughly' accurate in detail.
1. Either they were exactly accurate, or, they were not.
2. Oh yes lets just take ferrari's word for it and not bother checking against a real car taken at random. Ferrari would NEVER tell a lie to
gain a racing advantage over its competitors.
I think that a GOOD lawyer with real bottle could drive an articulated lorry or two through it all.
Personally I can't see Alonso's tenure at Maclaren lasting past the last race of the season as HE is, according to the FIA document, the
main user and abuser of ANY information gleaned out of all this AND he gets of scot free.
Beware of the Goldfish in the tulip mines. The ONLY defence against them is smoking peanut butter sandwiches.
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 15/9/07 at 01:24 PM |
|
|
That makes no sense. Why is Alonso the only beneficiary and not your new messiah, Hamilton?
|
|
|
locogeoff
|
| posted on 15/9/07 at 01:47 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyps
quote:
Originally posted by locogeoff
My statement was made before the official announcement and based on evidence I had at the time, however on this evenings news there was reports of
Alonso refering to using intellectual property of Ferrari (the use of gas mixtures for filling tyres) contained in the leaked document hence I would
say the cheating accusation can still stand.
Having started to read the document myself I would draw your attention to sections 3.4, 3.13, and 3.18 as examples of the above.
[Edited on 14/9/07 by locogeoff]
My interpretation of this section is that they did not actually use the gas:
quote:
from the FIA document
3.16 Although the e-mail exchange between Mr. Alonso and Mr. de la Rosa makes
clear that they both were enthusiastic about trying the gas apparently used by
Ferrari in its tyres, Mr de la Rosa's evidence to the WMSC was that he, on his
own, decided to explore with a Bridgestone engineer whether the McLaren team
should try this gas. He states that he had no other conversations with any other
specialist staff within McLaren. His evidence is that the Bridgestone engineer in
question doubted whether the gas would confer an advantage upon McLaren.
According to Mr de la Rosa, without further consultation with anyone else at
McLaren, and despite the fact that this had apparently been successfully used at
Ferrari, the idea was dropped and no actual attempt was made to test the gas in the tyres used by McLaren.
If you can put a different interpretation on it, please explain.
good point! Could the act of discussing or investigating the information be construed as making use of the information?
what about 3.18 or more particularly 3.19?
Must say I'm begining to look at it differently.
[Edited on 15/9/07 by locogeoff]
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 15/9/07 at 04:35 PM |
|
|
I am sure discussing or considering could be construed as making use of the infromation, but that is a bit like saying that Ferrari had sponsorship
from Marlboro and that the money they provide would be useful for McLaren to have so therefore they have taken advantage of that information. In other
words, it certainly does not give a performance advantage.
for the points raised:
quote:
FIA
3.18 On 12 April 2007 at 12.25 Mr. de la Rosa wrote to Mr. Coughlan and asked “ can
you explain me as much as you can, Ferrari’s braking system with the [reference
to detailed technical information]? Are they adjusting from inside the cockpit…?”
3.19 After a number of exchanges about whether a description would be too
complicated to articulate by e-mail, Mr. Coughlan replies on 14 April 2007 at
14.40 with a technical description which purports to be a description of the
principles underpinning the Ferrari braking system. Ferrari have confirmed that
the description given is an accurate (though incomplete) description of the
principles of its braking system. Coughlan concludes with a statement that “we
are looking at something similar”. This latter statement strongly suggests that the
McLaren system was being worked on from a position of knowledge of the details
of the Ferrari system, which, even if the Ferrari system not being directly copied,
must be more advantageous to McLaren than designing a system without such
knowledge.
I took it as meanign that once Coughlan understood how the Ferrari braking system worked having seen the technical description he said that McLaren
were working on something similar - i.e they already were woring on something similar rather than, thanks for that, I will work on replicating what
you are doing. Maybe I misinterpreted this, but I have re-read it a few times and not changed my mind yet.
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
locogeoff
|
| posted on 15/9/07 at 05:44 PM |
|
|
I have to say I feel there is no performance advantage in discussing the data in the case of the tyre gas or the balance of the car if no development
is driven by that discussion, but I believe in the case of the braking system that a significant development advantage would be made by having
knowledge of another design even if only to discount possible development routes.
I can only think that the FIAs decision to inflict the penalty was due to McLaren saying they haven't made use of the info when they clearly
have at least evaluated the information and are in a position to make possible use of the information in further development rather than the blatent
plagerising aspects of the ferrari design.
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 15/9/07 at 06:26 PM |
|
|
I agree as to why the FIA may have made the decision they did, but unless they also ban any employee of one team moving to another then it is a
decision which cannot be held to elsewhere. It is possible, though unlikely, that McLaren may have employed Stepney had he left Ferrari, in which
case, even without taking a dossier with him he would have taken all his knowledge, quite legally.
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
