F1 2007 Season

[Stori]

Originally Posted by BigFoot

I guess all you have to do is ask Bernie. He can make anything happen

I suspect that the one thing that many of us would like Bernie to be able to do........is vanish

[BigFoot]

Actually the one thing I'd like him to do is give me his money

[Gary Slegg]

I don't think his wife would be too pleased

[Gary Slegg]

Ferrari aren't appealing

[Stori]

Originally Posted by Gary Slegg

Ferrari aren't appealing

I would have to agree.... I would prefer an Alfa Romeo

[PC7671]

Forcast for Budapest is Rain Saterday and maybe Sunday.

[BigFoot]

Bring the umbrellas

[Chrispy]

I'm amused by the conduct of Ferrari lately, and how upset Todt is.

I'm also amused when people say Ferrari's flexi floor wasn't cheating because it passed the then FIA test. The device broke the letter of the rule, but was able to pass the test used to enforce the rule. The test does not define the rule, the rule defines the test, and getting around it by subterfuge doesn't make it legal or even a grey area in my book.

When the Renault Mass Damper was banned as a moveable aerodynamic device it wasn't even close to the same thing. The TMD meet with the spirit and letter of the rules, and was not exposed to airflow in any way (one was inside a case in the nose, one inside the gearbox). It was actually part of the suspension. McLaren use a similar technology (but miniturised) in their Koni Dampers.
I've said before that TMD's were a legal technology for a year before it was axed to stop Renault running away with another championship in the year of Schumachers retirement.

Another thing for sure is that part of Ferraris game is to unsettle McLaren. Alot of McLarens senior technical staff will have spent alot of time preparing for the FIA case instead of making the car faster, meanwhile Ferrari just have to sling some mud and carry on catching up. In my experience racing against Ferrari this is really true to form- they don't play fair.

[jamieboy]

Originally Posted by Chrispy

When the Renault Mass Damper was banned as a moveable aerodynamic device it wasn't even close to the same thing. The TMD meet with the spirit and letter of the rules, and was not exposed to airflow in any way

Obviously you'll know more about this than me, but I didn't think it was banned as a moveable aerodynamic device - I don't think such a rule exists. I thought it was banned because "any part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance ... ... must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car"

So if you have a weight which is able to move relative to the sprung part of the car, and one effect of the movement of that weight is to help the aero package to work at its most efficient, then I'm not sure I agree that it met with the spirit and the letter of the rules.

[Gary Slegg]

Originally Posted by Chrispy

I'm also amused when people say Ferrari's flexi floor wasn't cheating because it passed the then FIA test. The device broke the letter of the rule, but was able to pass the test used to enforce the rule. The test does not define the rule, the rule defines the test, and getting around it by subterfuge doesn't make it legal or even a grey area in my book.

I completely agree - I think Todt's stance is more of the gamesmanship that we've seen in the past

[BigFoot]

Guys, I surely hope you are not serious!

How can you compare a team's efforts to use the maximum extent of the rules of F1, which obviously are not all encompassing and have to be clarified and adjusted from time to time, to McLaren's industrial espionage?

May I remind you all that the McLaren's case is still subject to a criminal investigation in Italy and a civil one in England?

[PeterWolf]

Originally Posted by BigFoot

How can you compare a team's efforts to use the maximum extent of the rules of F1,

Easy. Just because a cyclist in Tour De Drugs passes a drug test that doesn't mean he isn't cheating with a new drug that is undetectable with current techniques.In his mind if he passes the drug test then he is legit regardless of the dial-an-infusion van following him around .

One person from Ferrari was responsible for the incident and another from McLaren. Espionage is widespread and has been around for a loooong time.It is the relaxed and amateurish way in which it was done that is most interesting. Taking the ferrari cook-book in a copy shop in order to make copies-digital or otherwise. Not very smart to do especially when it's done by engineers

[PeterWolf]

Originally Posted by jamieboy

Obviously you'll know more about this than me, but I didn't think it was banned as a movable aerodynamic device - I don't think such a rule exists.

At Hockenheim, the mass damper was deemed by the FIA to be a moveable aerodynamic device due to the influence it had on the pitch attitude of the car, and hence, as a consequence, the performance of the aerodynamics.

The Stewards of the meeting deemed it legal, but the FIA appealed against that decision. 2 weeks later, the FIA International Court of Appeal deemed the mass damper illegal.

"recent evidence and an escalation in development by some teams, has made it clear to us that the principle purpose of these devices is to improve the aerodynamic performance of the car.

"As the mass suspended inside the dampers is designed to move freely it is therefore not secured to the entirely sprung part of the car nor does it remain immobile in relation to it.

"Therefore, as this movement influences the aerodynamic performance of the car we feel that mass dampers of this sort contravene Article 3.15 of the F1 Technical Regulations and we no longer consider their use permissible." -FIA technical delegate Charlie Whiting

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :

With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :

-Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
-Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).
-Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car. Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances. No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

3.17.7 - "In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion."

[jamieboy]

Originally Posted by PeterWolf

At Hockenheim, the mass damper was deemed by the FIA to be a moveable aerodynamic device due to the influence it had on the pitch attitude of the car, and hence, as a consequence, the performance of the aerodynamics.

Sorry to be pedantic, but it wasn't deemed to be a moveable aero device - as both my own quote and yours illustrate, no such rule exists. The rule it fell foul of covers any device which can move, and which can affect aero performance.

This is subtly different, as it includes devices such as the TMD which affect aero performance despite not being an aerodynamic device themselves.

[renone]

Originally Posted by BigFoot

Guys, I surely hope you are not serious!

How can you compare a team's efforts to use the maximum extent of the rules of F1, which obviously are not all encompassing and have to be clarified and adjusted from time to time, to McLaren's industrial espionage?

May I remind you all that the McLaren's case is still subject to a criminal investigation in Italy and a civil one in England?

:ferrari:

Very good point regarding the legal proceedings. I wonder what will happen should Ferrari win? What stance will the FIA take? As I said before my thinking is that should this happen the FIA will have to take action. Once again the whole affair is a complete blight on the sport.

[PeterWolf]

Originally Posted by jamieboy

Sorry to be pedantic, but it wasn't deemed to be a moveable aero device - as both my own quote and yours illustrate, no such rule exists. The rule it fell foul of covers any device which can move, and which can affect aero performance.

This is subtly different, as it includes devices such as the TMD which affect aero performance despite not being an aerodynamic device themselves.

I've failed to mention that the quote is from Autosport. Nevertheless the FIA statement explicitly states that the device's "principle purpose was to improve the aerodynamic performance of the car". We know that it's not a wing but according to the FIA the device is directly connected to the aerodynamics of the car even though it is inside of the car and not exposed to the elements.The FIA calls this a passive moveable aerodynamic device(I think).But I understand that the way in which the FIA phrases it may bring confusion.

[renone]

Here we go again!


Ferrari spy row will go to appeal
Motorsport's court of appeal will consider the verdict not to punish McLaren. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/default.stm

[Gary Slegg]

This is a disgrace - I hope this back fires on Ferrari big time

[PR]

Again Gary, Im afraid I disagree completely

I think its a bit of a stitch up anyway, give Ferrari their appeal, find McLaren guilty, don't punish them, but they've had thier appeal so tuff!

[Gary Slegg]

Well, its good news for Silverstone

But will this be enought to keep Bernie happy

[Chrispy]

I can't believe this! The FIA have backflipped on an appeal approval after Ferrari spent a week whinging to the press and launching a missleading press campaign! It's really making me sick. Ferrari are the disgrace to F1! The road cars are great, but the F1 team is horrible!

No wonder they've had employees leave the team and be so willing to sell them and the technical info out (more than just Stepney I can tell you).


And the double standards! In 1997, when Todt was in charge, Ferrari hired a photographer to go out, onto a live racing circuit, and take detailed pictures of DC's broken down McLaren, including closeups down the footwell. They then used the photos to lodge a protest against McLaren, and the FIA subesquently banned their two brake pedal system, even though, like the TMD, the FIA had been consulted about the concept and had approved the device to race thoughout the season to that point. Just one example, and then they lecture the world on honourable conduct!

I'm so happy Renault beat them the last two years, and I hope McLaren beat them this year, and I hope they have another 20 year loosing streak! They've earnt it!

[Gary Slegg]

Originally Posted by Chrispy

I'm so happy Renault beat them the last two years, and I hope McLaren beat them this year, and I hope they have another 20 year loosing streak! They've earnt it!

I hope that something comes out to show they did use traction control when it was banned, and that all their championships since 2000 are taken off them

[jamieboy]

Originally Posted by Chrispy

In 1997, when Todt was in charge, Ferrari hired a photographer to go out, onto a live racing circuit, and take detailed pictures of DC's broken down McLaren, including closeups down the footwell. They then used the photos to lodge a protest against McLaren

Was that after Darren Heath took the famous photos for F1 Racing magazine? Or do you believe he was paid by Ferrari to take them? For me, that'd need some good evidence to back it up.

[Chrispy]

Originally Posted by jamieboy

Was that after Darren Heath took the famous photos for F1 Racing magazine? Or do you believe he was paid by Ferrari to take them? For me, that'd need some good evidence to back it up.

It's no secret that all the teams - don't pay the photographer for photo's- but tell the photographers what part of other cars they'd like to see more of, and then buy the photo's. Slight difference- I guess the photoghraphers only get paid for results then.

You can walk into the offices of any F1 Team and find close up pictures of other teams brake ducts, suspension, engine packaging, diffuser and wing details, anything you want. It's standard practice. Hell, get a good photo of a car on a crane and you can figure out someones weight distribution, like everybody did in winter testing when the Fezzas were brought back on a crane showing front dist despite the long wheel base.

I don't have any proof, and I doubt paperwork was raised and a reciept issued, but someone I know who was at Ferrari at the time says the photo's were commisioned. Interest was arroused by external photos showing only some disks glowing on corner entry, but the two pedals shot was the one that gave rise to the protest, and it was commisioned.

[Gary Slegg]

This is interesting:

An FIA Vice President has questioned Max Mosley's decision to send the espionage investigation involving McLaren to the Court of Appeal.

Carlos Gracia, who is president of the Spanish automobile federation (Real Federacion Espanola de Automovilismo), told the newspaper Diario As that he was surprised when he heard Tuesday's news.

"The truth is that I had hoped that the FIA would not question the decision of the World Council, but I would like more details from Max Mosley before announcing an opinion," he said.

"What is clear is that all of this controversy is not good for the image of the organisation."