rec.autos.simulators

Didn't Hakkiens first two wins come from Coulthard moving over....
-Stuart Becktell

Nope. I believe you are thinking of the first race last year.
Coulthard's first points this season was 3rd at Brazil and
Mika was out of that race (his second DNF in 3 races).

--

Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

Ah, the argument of the truly intelligent, at last!

BB

I agree with your reading of the events (and admire your careful
examination of all available info), but have one data point to add:
Norbert Haug, director of Mercedes motorsport, admitted on RTL TV
after the decision of the court that it was indeed someone from team
McLaren-Mercedes who tipped off the stewards.

Haug said (I paraphrase from memory) that the team wanted to file an
official protest regarding the barge boards, but was told by the
officials that this wasn't necessary - they would look into the matter
on their own.

However, he refused the allegation that McL-M had known about the
barge boards since the Nuerburgring race and had waited for the best
opportunity to use this info with the most damaging effect for
Ferrari.

--
Wolfgang Preiss   \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.

LOL!!
Too true.....good example of a "moving chicane"!
Remember when Renault first came into the fray with the turbos?  Now THAT
was a couple of years of chicanery!  Literally!!!  :o)

  -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
   http://www.newsfeeds.com       The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including  Dedicated  Binaries Servers ==-----

: Yes, I read it here http://www.f1-live.com/GB/
: 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.

Actually, I think Ferrari said "look, when we tilt it backwards a few
degrees, then the 10mm error becomes 5mm on each side.  Magic!

Pretty weasely to use words initially drafted to allow for tolerances on
forming a large flat epoxy undertray to win their appeal, but then again,
if the rule is vague, exploit it and force the FIA to better define their
rule.

Stephen

Again, what you think Ferrari or the appeals board said (a matter of
opinion) and what the appeals board actually ruled (a very public matter
of fact) are entirely different things. No offense, but whilst everyone
is entitled to their opinion, no one is entitled to present their
opinion as "the truth," unless it can be backed up with factual evidence
-- not even an FIA tech steward, which was the whole point of these
ridiculously extended threads in the first place, and the whole point of
the appeals process.

I'm still waiting to see a direct quote from Jean Todt or Ross Brawn or
the Ferrari waterboy made during the Malaysian GP weekend or its
aftermath in which anyone from Ferrari used the word "illegal" to
describe the turning vanes in question. There's been plenty of blowhard
"Well, *I* heard 'em say it!" but as yet none of the blowhards in
question have come up with the necessary genuine quote. Same with this
made-up-of-whole-cloth "look, when we tilt it backwards..." nonsense.
Its absolutely astonishing that purported ***s could start a paragraph
with the words "I think," and end up with the conclusion that "I think,
therefore it *must* be true."

As Mr. Wallace pointed out, no one on this list is even remotely in the
same genius class as he, so I could obviously be wrong here -- but IMHO
until someone comes up with the relevant, verifiable quotes (including
that Autosport fiction involving Irvine speaking about the barge boards
pre-race), then all we are left with are highly-fallible opinions,
nothing more.

These threads have gone on far too long -- certainly as much my fault as
anyone's -- and I'm sure nobody cares about the issue at hand anymore;
but people in this NG, as in every NG, present themselves as "experts"
and make statements they wish everyone to take as the truth. If people
are unwilling to back up what they say with nothing more palpable than
their own opinions, when the necessary facts are available to anyone who
wishes to find out the truth for themselves, then that says a great deal
about the character of the person making the stentorian pronouncements
of "The Truth According To Me," doesn't it?

BB

degrees, then the 10mm error becomes 5mm on each side.  Magic!

: Again, what you think Ferrari or the appeals board said (a matter of
: opinion) and what the appeals board actually ruled (a very public matter
: of fact) are entirely different things. No offense, but whilst everyone
: is entitled to their opinion, no one is entitled to present their
: opinion as "the truth," unless it can be backed up with factual evidence
: -- not even an FIA tech steward, which was the whole point of these
: ridiculously extended threads in the first place, and the whole point of
: the appeals process.

My comments on the whole issue are generally that the mounting of the
deflector on the car is secondary to the actual shape of the deflector.
The most logical way to measure it (given the nature of the "flat bottom"
rule) in the case of Ferrari's new-style deflector with bottom lip, is to
mount it on a nice, flat measurement table with the lip flush to the
table, since it, by the rules, must lie on the step plane.  Then get a
perpendicular straight edge and a dial gage (standard gear in any
mechanical tool box) and start checking the deflector for variations
between the projection of the deflector onto the step plane, and the
actual shape of the surface on the step plane.  It's so obvious, and has
nothing to do with the way the deflector was mounted on the car, as by
definition of the rule, there is only one acceptable arrangement, that
being with the lip aligned in the step plane.  If the deflector was of the
older style, with no lip, then of course it should be mounted vertically
to conform to the rules.  That ferrari made a case about the wuality of
measurement made is acceptable.  that one can debate how it was mounted on
the car seems a moot point, given the flat bottom rule.  That Ferrari has
stretched the intention of the +/- 5mm tolerance, which would seem to be
there to allow for manufacturing errors in the *large* composite flat
bottom causing out-of-plane waviness, is either a brilliant legal argument
or a weasel move.  I'll keep my mouth shut on that one.

: question have come up with the necessary genuine quote. Same with this
: made-up-of-whole-cloth "look, when we tilt it backwards..." nonsense.
: Its absolutely astonishing that purported ***s could start a paragraph
: with the words "I think," and end up with the conclusion that "I think,
: therefore it *must* be true."

Well, I think you will find my comment was tongue-in-cheek, and nowhere do
I say that is it true.  Try not to burst a *** vessel over it:

:>
:> Actually, I think Ferrari said "look, when we tilt it backwards a few
: degrees, then the 10mm error becomes 5mm on each side.  Magic!

Stephen

I think he was referring to Mika's first two career F1 wins, Jerez 97 and
Melbourne 98 IIRC.

--
Ian Parker

UKGPL League
http://members.xoom.com/ukgpl/index.html
http://www.ukgpl.com
--

On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:08:31 +0000, Barton Spencer Brown

Shucks Barton, since I have _never_ said so I can only presume this is
something you've dreamt up on your own. I'm flattered, really I am.

Not really. In this case (as with much in F1) no "facts" are
available, so the "put up or shut up" line is irrelevant. When talking
about issues in F1 there are generally scant few facts, massive
amounts of hyperbole on quotes that have been made and a long and
rather unillustrious history from which to see that fair and correct
decisions are a rather rare breed.

Opinions are generally all we have, and I for one rather enjoy
exchanging opinions. Trouble is it is rarely achievable on usenet with
civility for any prolonged period of time - people love their own pets
too much, me as much as anyone else on occasion. They see only the
parts of a discussion they want to see, discount huge swathes of
comment that doesn't agree with what they are trying to say, put words
in people's mouths. That's not much fun, but seems to be the nature of
usenet. Conversations in person never go the way of conversations on
the 'net, which I'm sure says something interesting about body
language, speech patterns and unspoken messages that are contained in
"normal" conversation that get lost on this wonderful medium.

Cheers!
John

Hmm, you put forward the feelings of EI as facts, and the science
based analysis of an engineer as questionable guessing...

Sorry, your answers to me were dripping with arrogance ("bottle of
water")
and left no doubt about who knows it all and who doesn't.

l8er
ronny

--
"I heard if you play the NT-4.0-CD backwards, you get a satanic
message."
"That's nothing, if you play it forward, it installs NT-4.0"

On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 09:52:34 +0200, Ronald Stoehr

No, that is a misrepresentation - I put forward as a fact that Eddie
Irvine said what he said - that is a fact, although can be misquoted
out of contest - Autosport's comments are pending. The engineer's
analysis can hardly be called science based from a cursory glance in
the pitlane, hence it is questionable guessing. I personally tend
toward Eddie's comments, talking up the Ferrari cause though they may
be, over the Minardi engineer (as supporting another Italian team),
but it's far from a fact.

Sorry, but I have no control over what inferences you choose to draw
from my statements and then present as facts. "Dripping with
arrogance" is sarcasm in response to sarcasm, and a reasonable comment
draws a reasonable comment. Response in kind.

Cheers!
John

<snip>
And if you're looking for the truth from within the sport itself then I
doubt you'll find it there either.  Let's be honest, is anyone from
amongst the Ferrari personnel going to describe their own equipment as
"illegal"? Of course not. So what about the other teams?  Well I expect
their hands are tied as well.  What kind of hornets nest would have been
stirred up by one of the other teams calling Ferrari what would amount
to "cheats" by having an opinion on whether they thought the barge
boards were illegal.  Unfortunately, the truth is out there, but no-one
withing the industry is going to let us know what it is.

So what you end up with is a lot of double talk and no-one saying what
they really think.  No, that is left to the likes of ourselves.

<snip>
--
Peter Ives

Mayhap you're right, but these latest direct quotes from Mosley
(concerning Bauer) and Norbert the Haug are quite the buck-you-uppo,
IMHO. As for anyone from Ferrari saying publicly that anything on the
car was actualy QUOTE illegal ENDQUOTE, you'd see the rocket launch from
Maranello as far away as Guam, I imagine...

BB