-----------== 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 ==-----
> Remember, facing the fact that you're a whacko is the first step toward
> recovery.
> Don McCorkle
>>This whole mess certainly demonstrates why the NASCAR method
>>is something to look at. In NASCAR the standings will remain. If
>>a car is disqualified, then the points for that car/team are removed.
>>The others get their second, third or whatever points.
>>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.
>Could that be linked to the intelligence of NASCAR fans...? Hey, I
>watched Billy-Bob win that race! What the hell..... (Sorry, just
>kidding!).
>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?
BB
:>Well, wether we agree or not on this topic, at least you got the last
:>part right John, Ferrari got the win back............
: Incredible isn't it? FIA measure a part an find it illegal, Ferrari
: look at it and admit that it is, then the ruling is overturned because
: it actually isn't when "measured more accurately". Were they using
: guesstimations in Sepang then?
No, what's incredible is that they can successfully argue that it was
turned at an angle that gave the most favourable reading. What will we
see next? Quick-set barge boards run as mid-ship wings, then quicky
brought back to vertical for post-race scrutineering? time to bring on
Formula None, I guess.
Stephen
:>Sorry, EI may be a pretty good racer, but questions about performance
:>improvements resulting from different aerodynamic devices on an F1 car
:>are better answered by even a Minardi engineer.
: Why? If you sit in on a fluid dynamics lecture when they tell you the
: answers to exam question will you be in a better position to answer it
: than a professor who's had a brief glimpse of a glass of water?
Well, I think that is a rather unfair swipe at the engineering skills of
those working in F1. The pressure-cooker environment quickly weeds out
the slackers from the achievers, in terms of engineers.
Stephen
Not whilst the "End of discussion/Lets agree to disagree. BTW I must just
have the last word" prevails
Personally I enjoyed the little "No it isn't - yes it is - no it isn't" bit
the best - in between the diatribes which made my brain hurt.
The worrying thing is you two can probably keep this thing going ad
infinitum. Others on this group would have been reduced to simple verbal
abuse by now.
Just my humble....
Tony
Seriously, isn't that what killfiles are for? Just killfile the
threadname. Probably what Barton and I should have done some time ack,
but there you go!
Cheers!
John
> On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:16:54 +0100, "Tony Rickard"
> >You guys are NEVER going to end this discussion!
> >Not whilst the "End of discussion/Lets agree to disagree. BTW I must just
> >have the last word" prevails
> >Personally I enjoyed the little "No it isn't - yes it is - no it isn't" bit
> >the best - in between the diatribes which made my brain hurt.
> >The worrying thing is you two can probably keep this thing going ad
> >infinitum. Others on this group would have been reduced to simple verbal
> >abuse by now.
> We try Tony, we try. Then, when someone disagrees, we try again.
> Seriously, isn't that what killfiles are for? Just killfile the
> threadname. Probably what Barton and I should have done some time ack,
> but there you go!
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
> >According the www.dailyf1.com, ferrari did admit they were illegal. I
> believe they even said J. Todt agreed.
> -----------
> Again, both Todt and Brawn agreed that the vanes were out of spec,
> *after* the measurements had been taken by the FIA tech rep at Sepang.
> They never used the word "illegal" (see various direct quotes from
--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.
cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com
> I'm sorry, but if they are out of spec, they are illegal...
It's like any democratic judicial process -- without the right of
appeal, the result is totalitarianism of the worst sort. Just as
importantly, without a logical END to the appeals process, the result is
unending anarchy, and somewhere, someone would STILL be trying to
overturn the results of the 1950 British Grand Prix and each and every
subsequent race -- nobody likes to lose. So the FIA Appeals Board is
like the US Supreme Court -- the court, as they say, of last resort.
Unfortunately, in this particular case, both Jean Todt and Ross Brawn
made all kinds of post-race chin-music -- gleefully reported and
misreported by the motoring press -- that they would base their appeal
on the fact that the "out-of-spec" condition gave them no performance
advantage, having (unwisely and prematurely) agreed with Jo Bauer that
the boards were out of spec, BY JO BAUER'S MEASUREMENTS. This is where
the FIA's strict procedural rules gave Jo Bauer no choice but to be
circumspect, offering the results of his measurements as an "opinion,
pending appeal," while the knuckleheads at Ferrari were under no such
control, and could blather on as they liked, to their very public
embarrassment. It made for sensational press, and (IMHO) precipitated
the crisis in which Jean Todt was rumored to have offered his
resignation (more's the pity DiMontezemolo didn't accept it on the spot,
again, IMHO). But for all the hoopla and horse-hockey they generated,
Todt's and Brawn's intemperate remarks could have NO EFFECT ON THE
APPEALS PROCESS WHATSOEVER. Why? For the simple and good reason that,
like most appeals processes in a democratic system, Ferrari, its
attorneys, and its representative (the Automobile Club of Italy, just as
McLaren's representative in such a situation would be the RAC), do NOT
have to state the reason for their appeal until the hearing itself --
remember, the hearing is primarily about whether the appeal itself has
merit, and only secondarily about the original opinion of the tech
steward), and in fact, the appeals board can ONLY judge the appeal on
the evidence brought forward AT the hearing. It's very similar to the
'trial by peer jury" system: Jurors (or judges, in non-juried hearings)
are strictly enjoined from basing their deliberations on anything BUT
the evidence presented AT the hearing. No news stories, rumors, tips,
leaks, hunches, or bad pizza dreams -- just the evidence presented.
Jo Bauer presented his evidence, the results of his measurements in parc
ferm at Sepang. Whatever he used to measure the opined discrepancy --
yardstick, laser measurement, hand-span, or eyeball -- he was stuck with
it, because that was what his opinion and ruling at Sepang was based
upon: a moment frozen in time. And Ferrari's appeal was simply against
Bauer's opinion at Sepang. Obviously, wiser heads than Todt's at Ferrari
realized that field measuring equipment, especially for the measurement
of the relationship between two or more irregular bodies referenced
against two theoretical planes, were likely to have a CEP well outside
the accepted 5mm tolerance. They presented evidence at the appeals
hearing which convinced teh judges that they were correct, and Bauer's
opinion was not -- simple as that.
All the "who stands to benefit," "good of the sport," "Ecclestonian
Commercial Pressure," "this is a shambles" (John Watson), " a disgrace"
(Norbert Hauge, Ron Dennis, and the McLaren International cleaning
lady), and the various side-splitting misstatements and opinions from
Autosport, bild, auto motor und sport, the ubiquitously unemployable
Niki Lauda, Willi Weber, the Pope, the French Legme, and the Hong Kong
Fireworks Company are just plain show-business -- the wilted,
unattractive, and inedible parsley garnish on what constitutes a
blue-plate special legal judgement from the highest court of an
agreed-upon (Concorde and previously) rules-enforcing system that
everyone from Bernie E. to the Minardi wax-boy accepts as binding when
they join the F1 circus. Simple as that. You put a system in place, you
abide by the rules, and you accept the judgement of the
court-of-last-resort that you've all long-agreed upon. What happens if
you take a case to the Supreme Court and you lose? You've lost, period.
Time for everyone to get over it.
BB
Tony
John Wallace wrote
Cheers!
John
That, boys and girls, is why there's an appeals process...
---------------------------
Dennis: McLaren not disappointed, not surprised
REUTERS
OCTOBER 23, 1999
LONDON -- McLaren boss Ron Dennis said he was neither disappointed nor
surprised Ferrari were reinstated at the top of the Formula 1 drivers'
and constructors' championships at his team's expense on Saturday.
However, Dennis also said the International Automobile Federation (FIA)
had, in upholding Ferrari's appeal against disqualification from the
Malaysian Grand Prix, cast doubt on the competence of their own
equipment and officials.
"Are we disappointed? No. Are we surprised? Not really," he told a news
conference at his team's Woking headquarters in southern England. "We
think the push now for our sport has inevitably become quite commercial.
Everybody wants to have an exciting race in Japan but I think that the
price we paid for that one race is too great."
The outcome of the FIA appeal hearing in Paris reopened title races that
would otherwise both have been won by McLaren and their Finnish driver
Mika Hakkinen for a second successive season.
There is one round remaining, in Japan on October 31 and Eddie Irvine,
who led a Ferrari 1-2 finish in Malaysia, now leads the standings by
four points. His team are also four points ahead in the constructors' standings.
** "A way has been found, and if we were in a similar situation we would
be looking for similar ways, to provide a reason for the appeal to be
upheld," said Dennis. "Obviously there's been a reassessment of the
measuring process.
"A piece of equipment that's cost many millions of dollars not only to
have made but also to move around the world, which has been used in the
past...to verify the legality of a car has suddenly been brought into
question ** as has the competence of the FIA's own people," he added.
Ferrari were excluded from the Malaysian Grand Prix after the barge
boards -- fitted to improve air flow and stability -- were found to be
one centimetre too short when the cars were inspected after the race won
by Irvine.
However FIA president Max Mosley said Ferrari had proved the offending
boards were within a five millimetre tolerance allowed by regulations,
although that could not be confirmed at the time of the race.
** "Nobody in Malaysia had equipment sufficiently accurate to prove what
the court saw here in Paris yesterday," Mosley said.
** "Ferrari accepted the measurements as they were presented in Malaysia
as they could not prove there that the turning vane was not illegal."
The FIA said in a later statement that "the 10 millimetre dimension
referred to in the technical delegate's report (in Malaysia) resulted
from a method of measurement which was not necessarily in strict
conformity with the regulations.
"The measuring equipment available to the FIA scrutineers at the
Malaysian Grand Prix was not sufficiently accurate to call into question
Ferrari's statement that the turning vane was indeed properly attached
to the car."
Dennis said that the logical conclusion was that "the FIA individuals
who were part of this process have not demonstrated competence, that the
equipment that they have used for several years and that was updated two
years ago is suddenly brought into question on accuracy."
This, he implied, was unlikely.
"It may interest some people to know that this piece of equipment is
actually set up using lasers," he said.
"So I think even the most untechnical person can appreciate that if you
are using lasers to establish the accuracy of a piece of equipment then
it falls well within the capability of that equipment to measure within
a millimetre."
** Dennis said he was convinced that Ferrari had made a mistake but
accused them of being "slightly hypocritical to say that there is no
performance influence because effectively it is a very aerodynamically
critical area on the car."
In the course of his press conference, Max Mosley revealed the the FIA
technical delegate, Joachim Bauer, whose measurements at the Malaysian
Grand Prix lead to Ferrari's disqualification, admitted in the Court of
Appeal's hearing yesterday that the flaw on the Ferrari deflectors was
actually within the tolerance, in every aspect. "Therefore," Mosley
said, "No judge would have any alternative but to make the finding they
found." Mosley also denied that the appeal was upheld to allow an
exciting final race in Japan, saying: "Five independent judges had the
benefit of listening in great detail to the evidence. There was no influence."
---------------------------------------------------
Norbert Done It [so much for having to wait until post-season to find
out -- BB]
Mercedes sporting director, Norbert Haug, revealed that McLaren indeed
told the FIA about Ferrari's illegal barge-board at the Malaysian Grand Prix...
---------------------------------------------------
For you***detail lovers out there [or "How can I distance myself as
far as possible from Bernie?" Max pondered -- BB]:
Max Mosley's Full Statement
Saturday October 23rd, 1999
The following is the full statement made by the FIA's president, Max
Mosley, this morning in Paris:
"It was felt that whatever the decision that the International Court of
Appeal might take there might be criticism of Formula One or of the FIA.
This is because there were a large group of people who feel that to
interfere with a very exciting championship for the sake of a few
millimetres or for the sake of something which would make no difference
to the performance of the car would be wrong. On the other hand there is
a very large group of people, which includes me, who believe that if a
car does not conform with the rules, not matter how small the
non-conformity, you have no choice but to exclude it. The reason being
that otherwise you get into a massive debate about whether a particular
thing makes a difference or not.
"Now some of you may have noticed that Mr Ecclestone belongs to the
former camp - that is to say the people who think we should not
interfere with the championship over small matters. Now I have to say
that in financial matters Mr Ecclestone has great influence and people
listen carefully to what he says. He has a small influence in making the
rules because he has one vote among 24 on our World Council. When it
comes to enforcing the rules he has no influence what so ever and no
one, neither the Court of Appeal nor the Stewards, would pay any
attention to his views. He is of course entitled to his opinion but it
is of no consequence what so ever.
"Now having said that, it is important to explain one point. The whole
of Formula One is governed by detailed technical regulations which
include a large number of dimensions. These dimensions fall into two
categories - those which are either a maximum or a minimum, and those
which are simple dimension. When you have a maximum dimension you cannot
pass that by even the smallest amount because you have the freedom to
have less. In other words, if one metre is the maximum you can be 99.5
but you cannot be one metre plus even half a millimetre. If you are,
then you are outside the regulations. The same with minimum - you must
not go below the minimum.
"When you have a simple dimension, such as the present case where it is
a flat bottom, you have to have a tolerance because when you say the
bottom of the car must be flat, how flat is flat? If you measure
something with sufficient precision you can always demonstrate that it
is not flat. For this reason, in the flat bottom regulations, there is a
tolerance under article 3.12.6 of 5mm. Now, during the hearing yesterday
Ferrari came with a very accurate jig and were able to show the court
that the turning vane, when at a certain angle to the car, had no
dimension which exceeded the tolerance of 5mm. That is to say that when
the vane is slightly turned at an angle, the dimension, the shadow, on
one side decreases and on the other side increases. They were able to
show that all the relevant dimensions were within the 5mm tolerance.
"In addition to that they criticised, I think with some justification,
our methods of measurement. There was also criticism by the court as to
the clarity of the regulation itself. Those two criticisms, of the
methods of measurement and of the clarity of regulation, are going to be
looked into very carefully. Having regard to the fact that the
dimensions in no part of the turning vane exceeded the tolerance allowed
by the regulations, and having regard to the uncertainty introduced by
the methods of measurement and the wording of the regulation itself, the
Court of Appeal decided to overturn the decision of the stewards and
therefore the original result of the race stands in its entirety. That
is to say the drivers have the points they earned in the race and so do
the constructor, Ferrari. That was the decision of the Court of Appeal."
---------------------------------------------------
And finally, the Great Train Robber apparently has a done deal. Will
this get those Nervous Nellies in the EU/EEC off his back?:
Ecclestone Sells 50 Percent of his F1 Shares
Tuesday October 26th, 1999
Bernie Ecclestone closed a deal today to sell 50% of his shares in
Formula One management to Deutsche Bank's Morgan Grenfell Private Equity
in a $1.3 billion deal. In a report in the Financial Times, Morgan
Grenfell said it had agreed to buy 12.5%t of Formula One Holdings, which
owns grand prix broadcasting rights, and would bring in other investors
to take the holding to 50% over the next few weeks.
Morgan Grenfell, which owns half of the Arrows F1 team, has reportedly
turned to the Benetton clothing family, owners of the Benetton F1 team,
to join the deal as well. A speaker for Morgan Grenfell Private Equity
said the agreement with Ecclestone will see floatation plans of F1
Holdings back on track, and executed within 2-3 years.
