According to Espn, Ferrari won its appeal and the F1 Championship will come
down to the last race! :)
The FIA basically said Oops!, we did not measure it correctly the first time. The tech stewards did not have proper measuring
tools.
I think there is also some confusion in what the rules are on these dimensions.
I wish it was that easy to appeal and change an SCCA decision.
Lutrell :-)
DSR # 74
http://insideracingtechnology.com/dsr1.htm
"In a press release issued in the past five minutes, the FIA court of appeal
has quoted the following as reasons for the reinstatement of the Ferrari's:
1. All dimensions of the turning vane (barge board) were within the 5mm
tolerance allowed by the relevant regulations, provided the vane was
properly attached to the car.
2. The 10mm dimension referred to in the Technical Delegate's report
resulted from a method of measurement which was not necessarily in strict
conformity with the regulations.
3. 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.
This announcement confirms that Ferrari were able to win the appeal by
convincing the court that the stewards could not prove that the cars were
illegal. It had previously been thought that the team would base their
appeal on the argument that while the part in question did not conform to
the rules, they gained no performance advantage from the irregularity."
It seems to me that the FIAs own shoddy tech inspections were to blame for
this whole fracas and that Max and his bunch of hoodlums should be taken to
task by all the teams and sponsors for allowing this to happen in the first
place.
>The FIA basically said Oops!, we did not measure it correctly the first
Let us not forget that FERRARI also confessed to the illegality, and
that presumably also their measuring equipment was also of equivalent
error-prone design. What were they using that couldn't resolve a
measurement to an accuracy of less than 1cm? A metre stick? A school
ruler?
Words cannot express how much this "trial" stinks of collusion to
recreate the Suzuka money spinner.
Cheers!
John
> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:57:23 -0700, "don hodgdon"
> <dphiiNOS...@mindspring.com> wrote
> >It seems to me that the FIAs own shoddy tech inspections were to blame for
> >this whole fracas and that Max and his bunch of hoodlums should be taken to
> >task by all the teams and sponsors for allowing this to happen in the first
> >place.
> Words cannot express how much this "trial" stinks of collusion to
> recreate the Suzuka money spinner.
> Cheers!
> John
<<FIA's technical delegate Jo Bauer said: "Following the race, car
numbers 03 (Schumacher) and 04 (Irvine) were checked for bodywork
conformity. When checking the bodywork facing the ground (Article
3.12.1) it was noticed that the upper parts of the deflector panels do
not lie on either the reference or step planes. IN MY OPINION [emphasis
mine--BB] neither car complies with Article 3.12.1 of the 1999 FIA
Formula One technical regulations."
Article 3.12.1 of the FIA rules says: All sprung parts of the car
situated more than 33cm behind the front wheel centre line and more than
33cm forward of the rear wheel centre line, and which are visible from
underneath, must form surfaces which lie on one of two parallel planes,
the reference plane or the step plane.>>
The extreme end of the turning vane, in Bauer's opinion, lay outside one
or both the referenced planes by "less than one centimetre."
It's one thing to measure a dimension on a flat piece of composite,
quite another to measure -- in mid-air, as it were -- a single point of
one piece of bodywork in relation to a theoretical plane defined by the
maximum point of another piece of bodywork.
As to your characterizations of Ross Brawn's remarks:
"Technical director Ross Brawn showed the offending barge boards to the
media at a packed gathering some 4 hours after the race.
"We do not have influence on what parts of the car the FIA will check":
Brawn explained. "The parts were used at Nurburgring and we are sure
there was no performance benefit. The design was correct, but there may
have been an error in production which has left a small piece of
material absent. There is a piece missing and that is about one
centimeter. We haven't established the reason why that has occurred"
With those facts in mind, consider the actual findings, announced this
morning, of the appeals board:
<< 1. All dimensions of the turning vane (barge board) were within the
5mm tolerance allowed by the relevant regulations, provided the vane was
properly attached to the car.
2. The 10mm dimension referred to in the Technical Delegate's report
resulted from a method of measurement which was not necessarily in
strict conformity with the regulations.
3. 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.>>
Now consider, in light of Ron Dennis' call on October 15 for a "fair fight":
<< Autosport, 15 October, 1999
In Formula One, McLaren team boss Ron Dennis has called for a fair fight
between the championship rivals this weekend at the Malaysian Grand Prix.>>
...that same Ron Dennis immediately screaming, at the end of the race in
Malaysia, for the stewards to disqualify Ferrari for allowing Michael
Schumacher to wear his grooved tires down to near slicks, Dennis
intimating that Schumacher stayed out on "unsafe" tires only to block
Hakkinen. Considering the ease with which other passes were made on the
Sepang track, the stewards found Dennis' call for a DQ to have no merit,
and it was refused. Just as the two Ferraris, done with post-race
scrutineering, were about to be rolled off the plate and out of parc
ferm, someone, by Jo Bauer's own account of the incident, tipped him
off that he really ought to have a look at the Ferrari's barge boards.
No one knows who that someone was, and only perennial whacko Flavio
Briatore and German mag auto motor und sport (longtime partisans of
Michael Schumacher) have said out loud it was someone from
McLaren-Mercedes.
You, Mr. Wallace, have repeatedly concluded and opined that Ferrari were
blatantly and knowingly running an "illegal" car, that there is
"collusion" to keep Ferrari in the Championship, that the whole thing is
a conspiracy worthy of Oliver Stone. People closer to the matter have
judged otherwise, and even Paul Stewart -- with a very great deal to
lose in his own team's championship placing by the overturn of the DQ,
and an initial supporter of McLaren's call for the DQ to be upheld --
said after the ruling:
"Before we arrived in Paris [for the hearing], we were under the
impression that this was a clear-cut case of a breach of the FIA
technical regulations by Ferrari. Fresh evidence was presented [by the
Italian team] at the hearing by the FIA which acknowledged that the
level of infringement (5mm) was in fact half that of the original
measurement taken by the FIA technical delegate at the Malaysian Grand Prix."
"Based on the fact that 5mm is the accepted level of tolerance applied
to that particular measurement under the FIA regulations, and the court
was satisfied that no infringement had occurred, we accept the court's
decision to uphold Ferrari's appeal."
One could hardly find a more unbiased observer in *that* particular
situation...
Just as much -- if not more -- of a case could be made for
Dennis/McLaren sowing the seeds of turmoil to try to win a championship
in the courts that they have been singularly unable to achieve on the
track. Ferrari, at least, have fought their way up against seemingly
insurmountable odds, considering McLaren's early-season dominance, but
Dennis, having unwisely thrown a wrench into his own championship
aspirations by "allowing" Coulthard to win an early-season race that HE
had not earned (and bringing the righteous wrath of the FIA AND FOCA
upon his own head). After all, it seemed early in the season that Dennis
could afford to throw races away. Now wants to revise history to his own
advantage because he was mistaken in his early optimism. Who's *really*
the poor sportsman in this scenario?
Bart Brown
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mosely insists Bernie had no influence
Max Mosely insisted that Bernie Ecclestone had no influence over the
decision made by the International Court of Appeal with regard to his
comments earlier this week.
"The court of appeal criticised, I think with some justification our
methods of measurement. There was also criticism by the court as to the
regulation itself," said Mosley.
"Those two criticisms of methods of measurement are going to be looked
into very carefully," he concluded.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrari wins appeal
At 11.00am local time Paris a roar swept through the crowd awaiting the
ruling that Max Mosley of the FIA would announce. Ferrari have been
successful in their appeal against their disqualification from the
Malaysian Grand Prix last weekend. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour
of Ferrari that they gained no advantage from the small irregularity on
the bargeboards.
Ferrari brought their own equipment to the hearing to prove that the
turning vanes on the barge boards did not exceed the 5mm tolerance level
when the cars were racing on the circuit.
Ferrari keep the 16 constructors points they gained in Malaysia as well
as the drivers' championship points they won. This means Eddie Irvine
leads the Drivers championship by four points - and Ferrari lead the
constructors' championship by the same four point margin.
Racecar Engineering ran an article about this equipment some years ago....
and beilive me - it's state-of-the art stuff!
This "trial" was just a hoax.... I suspect Bernie had the final call on this
one....
remember.. a showdown in Suzuka spells $$$$$$$$$ for him and Max!
--
All the best,
Edwin Solheim *remove SPAM-GUARD in address to reply*
The Paddock - a legendary site....
<http://home.c2i.net/thepaddock>
*** Proud member of the GPLEA ***
> Let us not forget that FERRARI also confessed to the illegality, and
> that presumably also their measuring equipment was also of equivalent
> error-prone design. What were they using that couldn't resolve a
> measurement to an accuracy of less than 1cm? A metre stick? A school
> ruler?
> Words cannot express how much this "trial" stinks of collusion to
> recreate the Suzuka money spinner.
So on your TV last Sunday Ross Brawn was *NOT* admitting that the part
was outwith the regulations set out by the FIA? If Ferrari thought the
part was legal they're pretty unlikely to say what he did - or didn't
he have a ruler handy?
I guess it's just lucky that it came out in favour of Ferrari and
Bernie's money-spinner then.
Hey, if I were McLaren I'd call that libellious. I have clearly stated
that there is no way of knowing WHAT Ferrari were doing, that it is
inconceivable that they chose to run an illegal car but that it was
equally incredible that they could make such a mistake. That Ferrari
deliberately ran an illegal car was not something I doscounted, but it
was not something I believed either - it's called "keeping an open
mind", or making a decision based upon the FACTS that you KNOW. No
known facts = no decision.
Now tell me you know what I was thinking better than I did....
As for Paul Stewart, have you heard his weasel words after Luciano
Berti _obviously_ ***ed Marc Hynes off the grid? Maybe judged
harshly, but I lost all respect for him with those comments.
Which early season race did RD allow Coulthard to win? He won
Silverstone on merit and Spa likewise - what was gifted to him? As for
McLaren being unable to win on the track, had it not been for
_Hakkinen's_ errors in Imola and Monza Ferrari wouldn't even be close
- hardly McLaren's fault. As for the making more of a case for
McLaren's sowing the seeds of turmoil, since when was it wrong to
question the legality of one of your competitors, especially with the
track record of Byrne/Brawn/Schumacher and when the FIA technical
representative and meeting stewards also believed the car to be
illegal? If there was the remotest sniff of that being a possibility
you can be sure Ferrari would have tried it.
Dennis has stated consistently that he will not destroy Coulthard's
title aspirations while they still exist - this was not early season
madness, this was and remains his position (or did until DC chucked it
away at Nurburgring). It seems to me like Dennis is THE true
sportsman, for allowing his drivers, BOTH of his drivers, to do what
they want and what the sport is all about.
Cheers!
John
PS - Please STOP sending these messages by e-mail as well. Thanks.
>Barton Spencer Brown wrote in message <38122CCF.32295...@earthlink.net>...
>>John Wallace wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:57:23 -0700, "don hodgdon"
>>> <dphiiNOS...@mindspring.com> wrote
>>> >It seems to me that the FIAs own shoddy tech inspections were to blame
>for
>>> >this whole fracas and that Max and his bunch of hoodlums should be
taken
>to
>>> >task by all the teams and sponsors for allowing this to happen in the
>first
>>> >place.
>>John Wallace:
>>> Let us not forget that FERRARI also confessed to the illegality, and
>>> that presumably also their measuring equipment was also of equivalent
>>> error-prone design. What were they using that couldn't resolve a
>>> measurement to an accuracy of less than 1cm? A metre stick? A school
>>> ruler?
>>> Words cannot express how much this "trial" stinks of collusion to
>>> recreate the Suzuka money spinner.
>>> Cheers!
>>> John
>>Well, apparently words CAN express how much *you* think this hearing
>>stinks of collusion, but that doesn't make it necessarily true. Also,
>>your characterization of Ross Brawn's remarks as some sort of
>>"confession of illegality" are somewhat hyperbolic, and not exactly on
>>the mark, in either spirit or letter. As to Mr. Hodgdon's remarks
>>concerning the FIAs "shoddy tech inspections," apparently he's not alone
>>in this opinion, as the following two articles (bottom) from
>>F1Racing.net clearly show. Remember that the individual members of the
>>appeals panel are well and truly separate from FIA or FOCA, all members
>>being judges or attorneys with no connections -- legal, commercial, or
>>otherwise -- to any of the parties involved. Ferrari said up front that
>>they would present their case, NOT based on the unfortunate effects of
>>their DQ upon the championship, but in technical terms that would leave
>>no doubt the vanes were within the FIA 5mm tolerance. The panel was
>>convinced of Ferrari's arguments, based upon the measuring devices used
>>by Ferrari AND by the FIA in Sepang. Also remember that the measurement
>>in question is not an absolute measurement of the vane itself, but the
>>vane's position in relation to the bodywork -- the actual citation from
>>Jo Bauer referred to article 3.12.1 of the FIA rulebook, which specifies
>>NOT the dimensions of the barge boards, but their relationship to the
>>rest of the bodywork:
>><<FIA's technical delegate Jo Bauer said: "Following the race, car
>>numbers 03 (Schumacher) and 04 (Irvine) were checked for bodywork
>>conformity. When checking the bodywork facing the ground (Article
>>3.12.1) it was noticed that the upper parts of the deflector panels do
>>not lie on either the reference or step planes. IN MY OPINION [emphasis
>>mine--BB] neither car complies with Article 3.12.1 of the 1999 FIA
>>Formula One technical regulations."
>>Article 3.12.1 of the FIA rules says: All sprung parts of the car
>>situated more than 33cm behind the front wheel centre line and more than
>>33cm forward of the rear wheel centre line, and which are visible from
>>underneath, must form surfaces which lie on one of two parallel planes,
>>the reference plane or the step plane.>>
>>The extreme end of the turning vane, in Bauer's opinion, lay outside one
>>or both the referenced planes by "less than one centimetre."
>>It's one thing to measure a dimension on a flat piece of composite,
>>quite another to measure -- in mid-air, as it were -- a single point of
>>one piece of bodywork in relation to a theoretical plane defined by the
>>maximum point of another piece of bodywork.
>>As to your characterizations of Ross Brawn's remarks:
>>"Technical director Ross Brawn showed the offending barge boards to the
>>media at a packed gathering some 4 hours after the race.
>>"We do not have influence on what parts of the car the FIA will check":
>>Brawn explained. "The parts were used at Nurburgring and we are sure
>>there was no performance benefit. The design was correct, but there may
>>have been an error in production which has left a small piece of
>>material absent. There is a piece missing and that is about one
>>centimeter. We haven't established the reason why that has occurred"
>>With those facts in mind, consider the actual findings, announced this
>>morning, of the appeals board:
>><< 1. All dimensions of the turning vane (barge board) were within the
>>5mm tolerance allowed by the relevant regulations, provided the vane was
>>properly attached to the car.
>>2. The 10mm dimension referred to in the Technical Delegate's report
>>resulted from a method of measurement which was not necessarily in
>>strict conformity with the regulations.
>>3. 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.>>
>>Now consider, in light of Ron Dennis' call on October 15 for a "fair
>fight":
>><< Autosport, 15 October, 1999
>>In Formula One, McLaren team boss Ron Dennis has called for a fair fight
>>between the championship rivals this weekend at the Malaysian Grand
Prix.>>
>>...that same Ron Dennis immediately screaming, at the end of the race in
>>Malaysia, for the stewards to disqualify Ferrari for allowing Michael
>>Schumacher to wear his grooved tires down to near slicks, Dennis
>>intimating that Schumacher stayed out on "unsafe" tires only to block
>>Hakkinen. Considering the ease with which other passes were made on the
>>Sepang track, the stewards found Dennis' call for a DQ to have no merit,
>>and it was refused. Just as the two Ferraris, done with post-race
>>scrutineering, were about to be rolled off the plate and out of parc
>>ferm, someone, by Jo Bauer's own account of the incident, tipped him
>>off that he really ought to have a look at the Ferrari's barge boards.
>>No one knows who that someone was, and only perennial whacko Flavio
>>Briatore and German mag auto motor und sport (longtime partisans of
>>Michael Schumacher) have said out loud it was someone from
>>McLaren-Mercedes.
>>You, Mr. Wallace, have repeatedly concluded and opined that Ferrari were
>>blatantly and knowingly running an "illegal" car, that there is
>>"collusion" to keep Ferrari in the Championship, that the whole thing is
>>a conspiracy worthy of Oliver Stone. People closer to the matter have
>>judged otherwise, and even Paul Stewart -- with a very great deal to
>>lose in his own team's championship placing by the overturn of the DQ,
>>and an initial supporter of McLaren's call for the DQ to be upheld --
>>said after the ruling:
>>"Before we arrived in Paris [for the hearing], we were under the
>>impression that this was a clear-cut case of a breach of the FIA
>>technical regulations by Ferrari. Fresh evidence was presented [by the
>>Italian team] at the hearing by the FIA which acknowledged that the
>>level of infringement (5mm) was in fact half that of the original
>>measurement taken by the FIA technical delegate at the Malaysian Grand
>Prix."
>>"Based on the fact that 5mm is the accepted level of tolerance applied
>>to that particular measurement under the FIA regulations, and the court
>>was satisfied that no infringement had occurred, we accept the court's
>>decision to uphold Ferrari's appeal."
>>One could hardly find a more unbiased observer in *that* particular
>>situation...
>>Just as much -- if not more -- of a case could be made for
>>Dennis/McLaren sowing the seeds of turmoil to try to win a championship
>>in the courts that they have been singularly unable to achieve on the
>>track. Ferrari, at least, have fought their way up against seemingly
>>insurmountable odds, considering McLaren's early-season dominance, but
>>Dennis, having unwisely thrown a wrench into his own championship
>>aspirations by "allowing" Coulthard to win an early-season race that HE
>>had not earned (and bringing the righteous wrath of the FIA AND FOCA
>>upon his own head). After all, it seemed early in the season that Dennis
>>could afford to throw races away. Now wants to revise history to his own
>>advantage because he was mistaken in his early optimism. Who's *really*
>>the poor sportsman in this scenario?
>>Bart Brown
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Max Mosely insisted that Bernie Ecclestone had no influence over the >>"The court of appeal criticised, I think with some justification our >>"Those two criticisms of methods of measurement are going to be looked >>------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>At 11.00am local time Paris a roar swept through the crowd awaiting the >>Ferrari brought their own equipment to the hearing to prove that the >>Ferrari keep the 16 constructors points they gained in Malaysia as well
>>Mosely insists Bernie had no influence
>>decision made by the International Court of Appeal with regard to his
>>comments earlier this week.
>>methods of measurement. There was also criticism by the court as to the
>>regulation itself," said Mosley.
>>into very carefully," he concluded.
>>Ferrari wins appeal
>>ruling that Max Mosley of the FIA would announce. Ferrari have been
>>successful in their appeal against their disqualification from the
>>Malaysian Grand Prix last weekend. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour
>>of Ferrari that they gained no advantage from the small irregularity on
>>the bargeboards.
>>turning vanes on the barge boards did not exceed the 5mm tolerance level
>>when the cars were racing on the circuit.
>>as the drivers' championship points they won. This means Eddie Irvine
>>leads the Drivers championship by four points - and Ferrari lead the
>>constructors' championship by the same four point margin.
>> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:57:23 -0700, "don hodgdon"
>> <dphiiNOS...@mindspring.com> wrote
>> >It seems to me that the FIAs own shoddy tech inspections were to blame
for
>> >this whole fracas and that Max and his bunch of hoodlums should be taken
to
>> >task by all the teams and sponsors for allowing this to happen in the
first
>> >place.
>John Wallace:
>> Let us not forget that FERRARI also confessed to the illegality, and
>> that presumably also their measuring equipment was also of equivalent
>> error-prone design. What were they using that couldn't resolve a
>> measurement to an accuracy of less than 1cm? A metre stick? A school
>> ruler?
>> Words cannot express how much this "trial" stinks of collusion to
>> recreate the Suzuka money spinner.
>> Cheers!
>> John
>Well, apparently words CAN express how much *you* think this hearing
>stinks of collusion, but that doesn't make it necessarily true. Also,
>your characterization of Ross Brawn's remarks as some sort of
>"confession of illegality" are somewhat hyperbolic, and not exactly on
>the mark, in either spirit or letter. As to Mr. Hodgdon's remarks
>concerning the FIAs "shoddy tech inspections," apparently he's not alone
>in this opinion, as the following two articles (bottom) from
>F1Racing.net clearly show. Remember that the individual members of the
>appeals panel are well and truly separate from FIA or FOCA, all members
>being judges or attorneys with no connections -- legal, commercial, or
>otherwise -- to any of the parties involved. Ferrari said up front that
>they would present their case, NOT based on the unfortunate effects of
>their DQ upon the championship, but in technical terms that would leave
>no doubt the vanes were within the FIA 5mm tolerance. The panel was
>convinced of Ferrari's arguments, based upon the measuring devices used
>by Ferrari AND by the FIA in Sepang. Also remember that the measurement
>in question is not an absolute measurement of the vane itself, but the
>vane's position in relation to the bodywork -- the actual citation from
>Jo Bauer referred to article 3.12.1 of the FIA rulebook, which specifies
>NOT the dimensions of the barge boards, but their relationship to the
>rest of the bodywork:
><<FIA's technical delegate Jo Bauer said: "Following the race, car
>numbers 03 (Schumacher) and 04 (Irvine) were checked for bodywork
>conformity. When checking the bodywork facing the ground (Article
>3.12.1) it was noticed that the upper parts of the deflector panels do
>not lie on either the reference or step planes. IN MY OPINION [emphasis
>mine--BB] neither car complies with Article 3.12.1 of the 1999 FIA
>Formula One technical regulations."
>Article 3.12.1 of the FIA rules says: All sprung parts of the car
>situated more than 33cm behind the front wheel centre line and more than
>33cm forward of the rear wheel centre line, and which are visible from
>underneath, must form surfaces which lie on one of two parallel planes,
>the reference plane or the step plane.>>
>The extreme end of the turning vane, in Bauer's opinion, lay outside one
>or both the referenced planes by "less than one centimetre."
>It's one thing to measure a dimension on a flat piece of composite,
>quite another to measure -- in mid-air, as it were -- a single point of
>one piece of bodywork in relation to a theoretical plane defined by the
>maximum point of another piece of bodywork.
>As to your characterizations of Ross Brawn's remarks:
>"Technical director Ross Brawn showed the offending barge boards to the
>media at a packed gathering some 4 hours after the race.
>"We do not have influence on what parts of the car the FIA will check":
>Brawn explained. "The parts were used at Nurburgring and we are sure
>there was no performance benefit. The design was correct, but there may
>have been an error in production which has left a small piece of
>material absent. There is a piece missing and that is about one
>centimeter. We haven't established the reason why that has occurred"
>With those facts in mind, consider the actual findings, announced this
>morning, of the appeals board:
><< 1. All dimensions of the turning vane (barge board) were within the
>5mm tolerance allowed by the relevant regulations, provided the vane was
>properly attached to the car.
>2. The 10mm dimension referred to in the Technical Delegate's report
>resulted from a method of measurement which was not necessarily in
>strict conformity with the regulations.
>3. 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.>>
>Now consider, in light of Ron Dennis' call on October 15 for a "fair
fight":
><< Autosport, 15 October, 1999
>In Formula One, McLaren team boss Ron Dennis has called for a fair fight
>between the championship rivals this weekend at the Malaysian Grand Prix.>>
>...that same Ron Dennis immediately screaming, at the end of the race in
>Malaysia, for the stewards to disqualify Ferrari for allowing Michael
>Schumacher to wear his grooved tires down to near slicks, Dennis
>intimating that Schumacher stayed out on "unsafe" tires only to block
>Hakkinen. Considering the ease with which other passes were made on the
>Sepang track, the stewards found Dennis' call for a DQ to have no merit,
>and it was refused. Just as the two Ferraris, done with post-race
>scrutineering, were about to be rolled off the plate and out of parc
>ferm, someone, by Jo Bauer's own account of the incident, tipped him
>off that he really ought to have a look at the Ferrari's barge boards.
>No one knows who that someone was, and only perennial whacko Flavio
>Briatore and German mag auto motor und sport (longtime partisans of
>Michael Schumacher) have said out loud it was someone from
>McLaren-Mercedes.
>You, Mr. Wallace, have repeatedly concluded and opined that Ferrari were
>blatantly and knowingly running an "illegal" car, that there is
>"collusion" to keep Ferrari in the Championship, that the whole thing is
>a conspiracy worthy of Oliver Stone. People closer to the matter have
>judged otherwise, and even Paul Stewart -- with a very great deal to
>lose in his own team's championship placing by the overturn of the DQ,
>and an initial supporter of McLaren's call for the DQ to be upheld --
>said after the ruling:
>"Before we arrived in Paris [for the hearing], we were under the
>impression that this was a clear-cut case of a breach of the FIA
>technical regulations by Ferrari. Fresh evidence was presented [by the
>Italian team] at the hearing by the FIA which acknowledged that the
>level of infringement (5mm) was in fact half that of the original
>measurement taken by the FIA technical delegate at the Malaysian Grand
Prix."
>"Based on the fact that 5mm is the accepted level of tolerance applied
>to that particular measurement under the FIA regulations, and the court
>was satisfied that no infringement had occurred, we accept the court's
>decision to uphold Ferrari's appeal."
>One could hardly find a more unbiased observer in *that* particular
>situation...
>Just as much -- if not more -- of a case could be made for
>Dennis/McLaren sowing the seeds of turmoil to try to win a championship
>in the courts that they have been singularly unable to achieve on the
>track. Ferrari, at least, have fought their way up against seemingly
>insurmountable odds, considering McLaren's early-season dominance, but
>Dennis, having unwisely thrown a wrench into his own championship
>aspirations by "allowing" Coulthard to win an early-season race that HE
>had not earned (and bringing the righteous wrath of the FIA AND FOCA
>upon his own head). After all, it seemed early in the season that Dennis
>could afford to throw races away. Now wants to revise history to his own
>advantage because he was mistaken in his early optimism. Who's *really*
>the poor sportsman in this scenario?
>Bart Brown
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Mosely insists Bernie had no influence
>Max Mosely insisted that Bernie Ecclestone had no influence over the
>decision made by the International Court of Appeal with regard to his
>comments earlier this week.
>"The court of appeal criticised, I think with some justification our
>methods of measurement. There was also criticism by the court as to the
>regulation itself," said Mosley.
>"Those two criticisms of methods of measurement are going to be looked
>into very carefully," he concluded.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ferrari wins appeal
>At 11.00am local time Paris a roar swept through the crowd awaiting the
>ruling that Max Mosley of the FIA would announce. Ferrari have been
>successful in their appeal against their disqualification from the
>Malaysian Grand Prix last weekend. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour
>of Ferrari that they gained no advantage from the small irregularity on
>the bargeboards.
>Ferrari brought their own equipment to the hearing to prove that the
>turning vanes on the barge boards did not exceed the 5mm tolerance level
>when the cars were racing on the circuit.
>Ferrari keep the 16 constructors points they gained in Malaysia as well
>as the drivers' championship points they won. This means Eddie Irvine
>leads the Drivers championship by four points - and Ferrari lead the
>constructors' championship by the same four point margin.
Do you really believe that Irvine earned this past win? If he earned it, he
wouldn't have needed his big brother to stop on the track and wait up.
Irvine deserves no championship. If it is going to come down to the last
race, it shouldn't come down to which team mate holds up the other team
better, but the 2 championship contenders going at it head to head. It is
amazing what F1 has come to.
J Black
> >3. 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.
> [Snip...]
> >It seems to me that the FIAs own shoddy tech inspections were to blame
for
> >this whole fracas and that Max and his bunch of hoodlums should be taken
to
> >task by all the teams and sponsors for allowing this to happen in the
first
> >place.
> Let us not forget that FERRARI also confessed to the illegality, and
> that presumably also their measuring equipment was also of equivalent
> error-prone design. What were they using that couldn't resolve a
> measurement to an accuracy of less than 1cm? A metre stick? A school
> ruler?
> Words cannot express how much this "trial" stinks of collusion to
> recreate the Suzuka money spinner.
> Cheers!
> John
Cheers!
John
> >3. 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.
> [Snip...]
> >It seems to me that the FIAs own shoddy tech inspections were to blame for
> >this whole fracas and that Max and his bunch of hoodlums should be taken to
> >task by all the teams and sponsors for allowing this to happen in the first
> >place.
> Let us not forget that FERRARI also confessed to the illegality, and
> that presumably also their measuring equipment was also of equivalent
> error-prone design. What were they using that couldn't resolve a
> measurement to an accuracy of less than 1cm? A metre stick? A school
> ruler?
> Words cannot express how much this "trial" stinks of collusion to
> recreate the Suzuka money spinner.
> Cheers!
> John
Cheers!
John
> If it is going to come down to the last
> race, it shouldn't come down to which team mate holds up the other team
> better, but the 2 championship contenders going at it head to head. It is
> amazing what F1 has come to.
> J Black
BB