> Mikka has been quoted as saying that he would prefer for the
A preference apparently not shared by Ron Dennis!
BB
> Mikka has been quoted as saying that he would prefer for the
A preference apparently not shared by Ron Dennis!
BB
I hadn't realised Ron could be such an arse!
It's interesting you raise the false start issue - where Mikka got away with
it because he didn't gain an advantage (apart perhaps from surprising the
rest of the grid.) I think that the fact Ferrari didn't gain any significant
advantage is pertinent again with the bodywork issue. Also, several drivers
have driven through chicanes this year, in fact I think Damon Hill is one of
the worst. They have got away with it so long as they didn't gain an
advantage. The same rule should apply for the bodywork infringement IMO.
Unlike some of the views in this thread, I have faith that the appeal
committee will reach a fair decision in the best interests of the sport.
Hopefully Ron will be told where to go!
Lawrence
championship. >>
Erm, sorry, I need to look that one up too! LOL
Fair enough, I was a bit OT and I didn't mean it to come accross the way it
did.
Lawrence
> I also think McLaren should be given credit for publically supporting
> Ferrari - Mikka has been quoted as saying that he would prefer for the
> championship to be decided on the track.
http://www.atlasf1.com/news/1720.htm
Dave
--
*****************************************************
David A. Ewing 303-544-5454
*****************************************************
Compare Ferrari of Villeneuve's time to Ferrari of Mansell's time to
Ferrari today - they're a lot more likely to consistently win, but in
truth are they and different to McLaren or Williams? Oh yes, the cars
are red.....or is that Williams?
Cheers!
John
>I heard that the complaining team was Stewart not McLaren. or am I
>wrong?
Those guys are simply unable to distinguish between a "race steward"
(who discovered the problem) and "team Stewart" (who had nothing to do
at all with the whole affair, AFAIK.)
As it seems, nobody knows for sure who alerted the FIA officials, but
it has been insinuated that somebody from McLaren told them to examine
the Ferrari's barge boards.
--
Wolfgang Preiss \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.
In the case of Ferrari it is impossible to define the level of any
performance advantage, just as it impossible to do anything other than
DQ them since the race is finished and other options are closed.
A fair decision in the best interest of the _rules_. The best interest
of the sport (and Bernie's walet) is to reinstate the points and have
a stonking showdown in Suzuka - so should we just overlook all
illegalities then? That, IMO, would be farcical, and I'd happily
forgoe the pleasure of a championship showdown to demonstrate that F1
has one tiny shred of "sport" left in it and that it's not, as I
believe, run entirely as a marketing exercise and money-spinner.
It's not Ron's affair - it's the Ross, Jean and Eddie show.
Cheers!
John
>Lawrence
>championship. >>
>> ....
>> Guess it all depends upon whose ox is being gored at the moment, as
>> Dennis certainly lobbied hard enough earlier in the season to duck
>> (successfully, too) having Hakkinen sent to the back of the grid for his
>> self-admitted false start, and Dennis also argued long and loud
>> (successfully, too) about his flouting of the FIA's ban on "team
>> orders".
Did do - wish you'd returned the courtesy.
: I said when cheating became more freqent....NOT when it started.
And I said _do you have any evidence for that whatsoever_? I believe
that cheating is _less_ frequent now than it was in the 70s despite the
fact that the sport is more commercial now than it was then. (I also
believe that the decrese in cheating is due to more rigorous checking
not due to any particular increase in virtue). I couldn't comment on
earlier F1 - maybe there was no cheating whatsoever in the 60s - I
severely doubt it - then again, I'm not sure what technical regulations
there were to break in the 60s apart from engine size (which would be
easily detectable).
Apart from anything else, there are so many more tests now that it's
simply inconceivable that teams could cheat quite so blatantly as they
did in the 70s and get away with it.
--
Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving
Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group
Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York
www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html
If you have no rulebook to enforce, then you can make up your rules as you
go along.
Voila! Problem solved--Ferrari could then be deemed to have "done nothing
detrimental to the sport of F1 racing", and they could have all gone to
Suzuka and made a pile of money.
But if those damned *rules* are out there in the way, then . . .
And all the European guys look down their noses at NASCAR, hehehe. <g>
NASCAR's only rule is to do whatever they think will make them the most
money--probably not a bad rule to have in the grand scheme.
Jerry Morelock
> >Hopefully Ron will be told where to go!
> It's not Ron's affair - it's the Ross, Jean and Eddie show.
> Cheers!
> John
> >Unlike some of the views in this thread, I have faith that the appeal
> >committee will reach a fair decision in the best interests of the sport.
> >Hopefully Ron will be told where to go!
> >Lawrence
> >championship. >>
> >> ....
> >> Guess it all depends upon whose ox is being gored at the moment, as
> >> Dennis certainly lobbied hard enough earlier in the season to duck
> >> (successfully, too) having Hakkinen sent to the back of the grid for
his
> >> self-admitted false start, and Dennis also argued long and loud
> >> (successfully, too) about his flouting of the FIA's ban on "team
> >> orders".