-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.racesimcentral.net/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
However....re:the Europa....we had a guy here in Oz tarted one up in the
Gold Leaf colours but I don't know if it was legit.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.racesimcentral.net/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
"The International Court of Appeal was presided over by Mr. Jos_
Macedo e Cunha (Portugal) and included Mr. Gerhard Nurscher (Austria),
Mr. Philippe Roberti de Winghe (Belgium), Mr. Vassilis Kousssis
(Greece) and Mr. Jan van Rosmalen (Netherlands)"
Hmm, the other 10 must have gone home with a "Bernie" in their pocket
each.
Or perhaps...
"Ferrari began putting forward their appeal against against the team's
disqualification in the Malaysian Grand Prix here on Friday. The
hearing, presided over by : Portuguese judge Jose Macedo e Cunha,
Gerhard Nurscher of Austria, Philippe Roberti De Winghe of Belgium,
Vassilis Koussis of Greece and Jan Van Rosmalen of the Netherlands
formally began at the Automobile Club de France in central Paris.
It will be up to the FIVE judges to decide whether Ferrari's
insistence that the illegal deflector 'barge boards' did not improve
performance merited the reinstatement of race points for Irvine and
Schumacher. Their finding are expected to be announced Saturday
morning".
The car was disqualified because the turning vanes were out of spec -
Brawn checked this and agreed with that claim. It is semantics.
Barton, do you READ anything else here? How many times have I said
good luck to Eddie and Mika? How many times that Ferrari (well,
Michael) were the class of the field in Sepang? How many times have I
criticised Mika and or DC in the past for tossing the car off the
road, driving like a plonker or whatever. I have a deep and long
standing enjoyment of F1, and no particular preference for any one
team over another. The one thing I truly hate is the manipulation that
apparently goes on, whereby rules are applied with sufficient measure
of inconsistency to ensure a biy money-go-round for all invoved.
No, I also believe Ron Dennis when he said that this is a bad day for
the sport. Either there is some underhand collusion going on, or F1
and Ferrari have been demonstrated to be unable to measure and/or read
and interpret their own rules.
Given no performance advantage and a 100% squeaky clean legal car
Ferrari utterly deserved the Sepang race thanks to Michael's
extraordinary performance - on that at least we agree.
Cheers!
John
PS - Thanks for cancelling the e-mail copies :-)
Cheers!
John
story!
Hehe.
do you have the appendix in a jar by any chance Bruce ;-)
Mark
Don McCorkle
--
Chuck Kandler #70
ChuckK or KS70 on Won.net
K&S Racing
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195
The box said "Windows 95 or better", so I installed LINUX!
> >>> The car was ILLEGAL as defined by the FIA,
> >>the meeting stewards and by Ferrari...
> >>No, John, it was not.
> >Yes Bart, it was. Or did we all just imagine that trial to overturn
> >the decision? The five trial judges decided to it wasn't, but the FIA
> >tech representative, the stewards and Ferrari said it was.
> Actually, according to www.dailyf1.com, they decided that the
> measuring instruments were not accurate enough. And further
> the Ferrari's were within the 5mm FIA tolerance.
> I was hoping Mclaren would win so I could have a peaceful time
> watching the race on Oct 31... I guess not :-)
--
Chuck Kandler #70
ChuckK or KS70 on Won.net
K&S Racing
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195
The box said "Windows 95 or better", so I installed LINUX!
Remember years ago when Mark Martin was disqualified after
winning? He still got the win but no points. NASCAR believes it
is important that the fans go home knowing who won the race.
All of this espionage in intrigue is getting whacky.
--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.
cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com
>>Well, John -- I give up. We're never going to agree on this. There was
>>no "trial" to overturn a "decison," there was a provisional
>>disqualification, followed by an appeal
>There was no "provincial disqualification", they were _disqualified_.
>It becomes provincial only when Ferrari appeal, which they later did.
>Their appeal is to show their car is legal, and until such time as
>they do the disqualification stands - they are not "innocent until
>proven guilty", quite the reverse.
>>followed by a hearing (by 15 judges, BTW)
>"The International Court of Appeal was presided over by Mr. Jos_
>Macedo e Cunha (Portugal) and included Mr. Gerhard Nurscher (Austria),
>Mr. Philippe Roberti de Winghe (Belgium), Mr. Vassilis Kousssis
>(Greece) and Mr. Jan van Rosmalen (Netherlands)"
>Hmm, the other 10 must have gone home with a "Bernie" in their pocket
>each.
>Or perhaps...
>"Ferrari began putting forward their appeal against against the team's
>disqualification in the Malaysian Grand Prix here on Friday. The
>hearing, presided over by : Portuguese judge Jose Macedo e Cunha,
>Gerhard Nurscher of Austria, Philippe Roberti De Winghe of Belgium,
>Vassilis Koussis of Greece and Jan Van Rosmalen of the Netherlands
>formally began at the Automobile Club de France in central Paris.
>It will be up to the FIVE judges to decide whether Ferrari's
>insistence that the illegal deflector 'barge boards' did not improve
>performance merited the reinstatement of race points for Irvine and
>Schumacher. Their finding are expected to be announced Saturday
>morning".
>>You
>>keep saying that Ross Brawn "admitted" that the vanes were "illegal,"
>>but that is simply not the case -- and I defy anyone to show a
>>verifiable direct quote that says otherwise. Brawn said that the vanes
>>were out of spec, but they gave no performance advantage, he did not say
>>they were "illegal," and he specifically stated that Ferrari had no
>>intention of cheating. You may think it's a matter of semantics, but it
>>is simply a matter of sense
>The car was disqualified because the turning vanes were out of spec -
>Brawn checked this and agreed with that claim. It is semantics.
>>barge boards. But all this is a circular argument -- you dislike
>>Ferrari, and you dislike F1 -- you're entitled to your bias.
>Barton, do you READ anything else here? How many times have I said
>good luck to Eddie and Mika? How many times that Ferrari (well,
>Michael) were the class of the field in Sepang? How many times have I
>criticised Mika and or DC in the past for tossing the car off the
>road, driving like a plonker or whatever. I have a deep and long
>standing enjoyment of F1, and no particular preference for any one
>team over another. The one thing I truly hate is the manipulation that
>apparently goes on, whereby rules are applied with sufficient measure
>of inconsistency to ensure a biy money-go-round for all invoved.
>><< A win for McLaren like this is...'no victory'. It is not the way to
>>win a title," he said. "They won the race fair and square on the track."
>>It was the only sensible thing said by any McLaren team member all week.
>No, I also believe Ron Dennis when he said that this is a bad day for
>the sport. Either there is some underhand collusion going on, or F1
>and Ferrari have been demonstrated to be unable to measure and/or read
>and interpret their own rules.
>Given no performance advantage and a 100% squeaky clean legal car
>Ferrari utterly deserved the Sepang race thanks to Michael's
>extraordinary performance - on that at least we agree.
>Cheers!
>John
>PS - Thanks for cancelling the e-mail copies :-)
----------------
DiMontezemolo quashed that rumor immediately.
----------------
----------------
----------------
My point exactly
----------------
----------------
----------------
And according to bild, and auto motor und sport, and Willi Weber, and
Flavio Briatore, and (if quotes can be believed anymore) Adrain Newey --
but everyone at McLaren International and Mercedes deny it vehemently.
Who knows? Jo Bauer, but he ain't talking.
----------------
----------------
The point being, there were many rumors, conjectures, and a veritable
cornucopia of semantic solecisms in the wake of the startling events
post-race in Malaysia. When you look at the relevant quotes from all the
different sources (see above), it becomes very clear how editorial
wishful thinking, condensation, and just plain sloppiness can make for
massive confusion. It's the old "who knew what and when did they know
it" problem most often found in governmental scandals -- in the case of
the Malaysian GP, it's probably safest to believe none of what you read,
a third of what you see, and maybe half what you hear -- and only then
if it's live, real-time and unedited.
>Remember years ago when Mark Martin was disqualified after
>winning? He still got the win but no points. NASCAR believes it
>is important that the fans go home knowing who won the race.
Seriously, that rule is as wide open as any other. OK, Hakkinen _must_
win in Suzuka to win the title. So let's put a turbo in Michael's car,
wrap up the 10 points and then, whoops, sorry - isn't that allowed?
Cheers!
John
Once the appeal is made and accepted for hearing, then the team or
driver in question is most certainly "innocent until proven guilty."
Look it up...
There are 15 judges available to the FIA appeals board. However many are
used for a given appeal is a matter of who's available, and is entirely
up to the appeals board. There *is* a minimum number required for an
appeal. I don't know what that number is.
<<It is semantics...Either there is some underhand collusion going on,
or F1 and Ferrari have been demonstrated to be unable to measure and/or
read and interpret their own rules.>>
Those are simply your opinions -- you're entirely welcome to them, but
no matter how many times you repeat them, it doesn't make them fact.
Period.
> Pardon me for butting in here. WTF is the difference between "out of spec", as
> you put it, and illegal? There is none. If the car don't meet specs, it's an
> ILLEGAL configuration.
Ignore all the hoopla that Ferrari's initial grounds for appeal (made
within an hour of Bauer's opinion while the team was packing to leave --
hell, Irvine was already in-flight and unreachable at the time of
Bauer's opinion) were that the cars "gained no performance advantage"
from the miniscule deviation (later proven technically correct, but
that's beside the point); in a surprise move later in the week, after
Ferrari had had a chance to look at their measuring equipment at the
factory and the FIA's on the ground at Sepang, Ferrari's attorney and
the Automobile Club d'Italia came to the hearing with incontrovertible
evidence (according to the judges decision) that A) the FIA's measuring
equipment used at parc ferm in Sepang was of inadequate reliability to
support Bauer's opinion, and B) more accurate inspection of the vanes as
installed showed them to be within the FIA's accepted (by long
precedent) 5mm tolerance for that particular category of bodywork
specification. Again, we're not talking about an engine bore dimension
here, we're tlaking about the spatial relationship of a piece of
bodywork attached to another piece of bodywork by a couple lengths of
(inevitably malleable) rod or tubing.
Bottom line, the vanes were only "illegal" if the board of appeals RULED
they were illegal, and they ruled otherwise. You may not like it, agree
with it, or think it makes any sense, but that's the appeals process,
everyone involved accepted it -- they had no choice, really -- and life
goes on.
BB
No, facts are things like the number of judges at an appeal, but even
that seems open to question.
John
> >Not in everyones opinion, it aint!
> >"Premier" technologically, certainly. "Premier form of
> >motor-sport".....uh-uh!
> It doesn't have to be in everyone's, just in the majority of people
> who have an opinion.
> Cheers!
> John
