Re: OT: Ferrari Disqualified!

Ferrari will meet with the FIA in Geneva tomorrow -- Hakkinen's championship status is neither confirmed or otherwise until Ferrari's appeal has been heard. The barge boards in question are exactly the same ones used (and checked by FIA Tech) at the last race (N�rburgring for the Luxembourg GP). I think Bernie better watch which way he steps on this one -- the EU is already less than thrilled with his manipulation. BB

On Sun, 17 Oct 1999 16:37:26 -0500, Barton Spencer Brown <[email hidden]> wrote: >Ferrari will meet with the FIA in Geneva tomorrow -- Hakkinen's >championship status is neither confirmed or otherwise until Ferrari's >appeal has been heard. The barge boards in question are exactly the same >ones used (and checked by FIA Tech) at the last race (N�rburgring for >the Luxembourg GP). I think Bernie better watch which way he steps on >this one -- the EU is already less than thrilled with his manipulation. Excuse me? The boarda re either _legal_ or _illegal_, yes? I watched Ross Brawn on TV telling everyone that they were illegal, why and by how much - seems fairly clear cut. Saying that they were used in Nurburgring and Luxembourg adds only that the Ferrari was illegal at those tracks as well as Sepang, it doesn't make the car legal. Cheers! John

The Dude wrote: > So says the Ferrari bigwigs. Don't believe everything you hear. Somehow I > believe this info could be a slight manipulation of the truth on the part of > the "prancing horse." > > -The Dude� > Check out The Dude's radio show on 90.9 FM Indianapolis, B91. Thank the merciful gods that I never have to worry about checking out The Dude's radio show. Yeah, I'm sure that with a multi-billion-dollar championship at stake, Todt and Byrne are going to fiddle with 2mm worth of barge board trailing edge. Fortunately, all speculation is useless, and will be a moot point after Ferrari's appeal. BB

All I can say is that if the FIA decides to become biased toward one group (Ferrari), they are making a big mistake. Just because it is a big name doesn't mean that they can go easy on them. Do you think if a smaller team won and was found to have the same illegal specs, they should also be let go? And speaking of F1...about Eddie Irvine...If he were really a champion caliber driver, he wouldn't need his big brother holding up the other drivers and slowing down on the track so that he could win. Just my thoughts. But they really don't matter do they? J Black Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I hate to say this, I really do, but if the disqualification is upheld > following the Ferrari appeal, I hope that they withdraw from F1. > This is not an opinion that I arrive at lightly....not after following > Grands Prix for almost as long as Murray Walker. But by turning theirbacks > on F1 Ferrari, in my opinion, could have the greatest effect on the"sport"

Quoted text (21 lines)

> since that egotistical meglomaniac took control. > > Just the opinion of a once-dedicated F1 fan. > > > Barton Spencer Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Ferrari will meet with the FIA in Geneva tomorrow -- Hakkinen's > > championship status is neither confirmed or otherwise until Ferrari's > > appeal has been heard. The barge boards in question are exactly the same > > ones used (and checked by FIA Tech) at the last race (N�rburgring for > > the Luxembourg GP). I think Bernie better watch which way he steps on > > this one -- the EU is already less than thrilled with his manipulation. > > > > BB > > > > > > > -----------== 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==-----

Bruce Kennewell wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > I hate to say this, I really do, but if the disqualification is upheld > following the Ferrari appeal, I hope that they withdraw from F1. > This is not an opinion that I arrive at lightly....not after following > Grands Prix for almost as long as Murray Walker. But by turning their backs > on F1 Ferrari, in my opinion, could have the greatest effect on the "sport" > since that egotistical meglomaniac took control. > > Just the opinion of a once-dedicated F1 fan.

Bruce-- I couldn't agree more. This "Championship" has been engineered from the beginning of the season by that ageing Machiavelli-in-Guccis and his tousle-haired Son-Of-Oswald crony. If Enzo were alive today, Ecclestone would be soaking his Armani slacks at this moment -- no, let me take that back: if Enzo were alive today, this shit wouldn't happen, because he WOULD pull the team, and FIAT would back him all the way. 20 years between Championships is -- correct me if I'm wrong -- a record for Ferrari, and there's no doubt whatsoever that under Ecclestone's self-imposed reign (since he finally ousted that doddering fossil Jean-Marie Balestre), British teams have enjoyed a singularly benevolent shake from FIA, FISA, FOCA, FOA, and every other increasingly grotesque manifestation of "Bernie Ecclestone LLC." And I hope this finally spurs the EU to put some teeth in their investigations. This is a black day for F1 fans. If this isn't overturned, I hope the twin megalomaniacs Tony George and Bernard Ecclestone meet for the 2000 USGP and are torn apart by the mob of 150 or so that will turn up. That's it for F1 -- GPL is more than a memory of great cars, drivers, and tracks -- it's also a reminder that there once was a sport called Formula One...long since departed, alas. BB

Sorry, John -- I saw the Brawn statement, too -- and while he seemed to fumble with his words, I didn't get the same message you did from what he said. But it doesn't matter what you or I think -- what matters is what happens in Geneva tomorrow, no? BB

I'm sensing a bit of bitterness in this thread about Ferrari being disqualified - something I really couldn't care less about. The racing team of the magnificent Gilles V. vanished years ago. Its place has been taken by an organization as corporate and soul-less as any of the other mega-buck teams. And neither the excessively mouthy Eddie Irvine nor crash-em-out-if-you-can't-beat-'em Schumacher are my idea of a world champion. As for Ferrari always getting the short end of the stick from the organisers - it seems to me the machiavellian Ecclestone has manipulated in their favour more than often than not. Refuelling was brought in when the Ferrari V12 was the thirstiest engine in the field (the others had already gone to V10s) and would benefit the most from not having to carry a whole race's worth of benzine. After a couple years of pit fires, near disasters, and lugging those bulky, dangerous, pressurized rigs around the world most teams had had enough, but Ferrari's continuing veto has kept the ridiculous practice alive. There are other examples... But yeah, any championship is in trouble that gets decided like this. What is so ambiguous about the technical rules that bodywork could be found legal at two races (so Ferrari says...) and declared illegal by a third set of inspectors? Maybe if Bernie and his pet poodle Mosley took a break from screwing up the TV coverage in order to force us into pay-per view and instead spent some time writing technical regulations that actually made sense and produced cars that could race ("racing cars" - geddit?) instead of the current ugly, skinny, grooved-tire monstrosities, the on track activities could actually decide the championship. Until then I'll go back to GPL - and return to a time when F1 was a sport, the drivers were human beings, and the races were won on the track. Daniel PS: remove "zapspam" from my e-mail address to reply. Barton Spencer Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > I hate to say this, I really do, but if the disqualification is upheld > > following the Ferrari appeal, I hope that they withdraw from F1. > > This is not an opinion that I arrive at lightly....not after following > > Grands Prix for almost as long as Murray Walker. But by turning theirbacks > > on F1 Ferrari, in my opinion, could have the greatest effect on the"sport" > > since that egotistical meglomaniac took control. > > > > Just the opinion of a once-dedicated F1 fan.

<snip> watching a replay of an online GPL race about two months ago... :)

"Aibhne � hAimhirg�n" wrote: > excluded from the race results after scrutineers found the barge poles > > on their cars were the > > wrong size. > > I'm stunned at how fast the Ferraris were running considering they were > using barge poles. I wonder were they 10 foot ones. And THAT was a copied quote from Autosport -- they must have been thinking about the Venetian Grand Prix... Good eye!

On 18 Oct 1999 18:32:21 GMT, [email hidden] (Joao Silva) wrote: >I disagree. >Formula 1 without Ferrari would no longer be Formula 1. For some - I could live without them, they're simply another team. They were certainly an institution once, but that reputation has long since faded. It is kept alive in the dreams of the Tifosi, but that is all. >In the end it's the fans who lose and they've turned Suzuka into a race that >is meaningless. "They" presumably being Ferrari? The FIA officials did their job, nothing more nor less. Cheers! John

Lawrence Edwards wrote: > > Barton > > FYI James Hunt only won the championship because a decision to disqualify > him for having a slightly under-width car earlier in the season was > overturned on appeal... And the relevance to what I said is...? My comment on Hunt concerned his largely unsponsored year with Hesketh, not his fluke championship year with McLaren -- a Championship that was morally Niki Lauda's. If you're going to take the the time and bandwidth to excoriate me, at least get the facts in order, OK? BB

[email hidden] wrote: > >...I also believe the FIA circus scrutinizers have an implicit obligationto share with any team the results of FIA scrutinization of that teams car. I find it reprehensible the FIA needed McLaren to point out the problem for them :( (if indeed that is the case, which I believe it is). Ross Brawn has been saying all along that the team cars, and specifically the barge boards, were scrutineered throughout the weekend at Malaysia, from Friday to Sunday. They're the same barge boards (or turning vanes) on the same cars since the cars were set up for the Luxembourg GP. Doesn't it seem a little odd, at the very least, that it wasn't until post-race scrutineering that the FIA tech rep found a "problem?" This is certainly not the first time such nonsense has taken place, as those who remember ex-FIA scrutineer Roland Bruynseraede (of Jabroc plank fame) will recollect. BB

Barton FYI James Hunt only won the championship because a decision to disqualify him for having a slightly under-width car earlier in the season was overturned on appeal. I think Ferrari will be reinstated, and this is probably fair. McLaren have said that they don't really want to win under these circumstances, and this indicates to me that they wouldn't be too unhappy about having the dq overturned. Initially I thought Ferrari deserved no mercy, but when they said it was all over 1cm I changed my mind.... Lawrence Barton Spencer Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Ed Bain wrote: > > > > Here's a question for the F1 fans out there. When was the > > last time that watching an F1 race made your heart beat > > REALLY fast? > > > > In person? USGP 1974, James Hunt and the practically unsponsored Hesketh > 308C storming to an incredible 3d-place, beating out Emerson > Fittipaldi's high-buck Player's-sponsored Lotus 72D; same race, the > independent John Watson gaining a nearly-as-impressive 5th place in the > Goldie-Hexagon (very low buck) Brabham BT44, beating elf-sponsored > Patrick Depailler's Tyrrell. Before that, Jody Scheckter's 1972 F1 debut > at Watkins Glen in 1972 in a McLaren M19A. He only finished 9th, but > while he ran, he was absolutely electrifying, just as wild as in his > F5000 days. >

Don't watch it then. Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Formula One........a time when a privateer could compete on equal termswith > the manufacturers. A time when laughter was more common in pit lane than > grumbles. A time when a team in trouble and requiring a part would haveit > loaned by a rival. A time when the drivers socialised before and afterthe

Quoted text (52 lines)

> races. A time when losing a race was done so graciously. A time when > winning was done with equal grace > . > Formula One.......a time when it was a sport in the purest sense of the > word. > > > Barton Spencer Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > > > I hate to say this, I really do, but if the disqualification is upheld > > > following the Ferrari appeal, I hope that they withdraw from F1. > > > This is not an opinion that I arrive at lightly....not after following > > > Grands Prix for almost as long as Murray Walker. But by turning their > backs > > > on F1 Ferrari, in my opinion, could have the greatest effect on the > "sport" > > > since that egotistical meglomaniac took control. > > > > > > Just the opinion of a once-dedicated F1 fan. > > > > Bruce-- > > > > I couldn't agree more. This "Championship" has been engineered from the > > beginning of the season by that ageing Machiavelli-in-Guccis and his > > tousle-haired Son-Of-Oswald crony. If Enzo were alive today, Ecclestone > > would be soaking his Armani slacks at this moment -- no, let me take > > that back: if Enzo were alive today, this shit wouldn't happen, because > > he WOULD pull the team, and FIAT would back him all the way. 20 years > > between Championships is -- correct me if I'm wrong -- a record for > > Ferrari, and there's no doubt whatsoever that under Ecclestone's > > self-imposed reign (since he finally ousted that doddering fossil > > Jean-Marie Balestre), British teams have enjoyed a singularly benevolent > > shake from FIA, FISA, FOCA, FOA, and every other increasingly grotesque > > manifestation of "Bernie Ecclestone LLC." And I hope this finally spurs > > the EU to put some teeth in their investigations. This is a black day > > for F1 fans. If this isn't overturned, I hope the twin megalomaniacs > > Tony George and Bernard Ecclestone meet for the 2000 USGP and are torn > > apart by the mob of 150 or so that will turn up. > > > > That's it for F1 -- GPL is more than a memory of great cars, drivers, > > and tracks -- it's also a reminder that there once was a sport called > > Formula One...long since departed, alas. > > > > BB > > > > > > > -----------== 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==-----

In article <7uemtn$dsn$[email hidden]>, Zonkie <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >That would be the temper tantrum that i would expect of Ferrari. In which >case, F1 is better off without them. > >Z. > > >Please remove my_pants when replying.

I disagree. Formula 1 without Ferrari would no longer be Formula 1. Part of the reason some of us follow Formula 1 is because of the history and legacy of teams and tracks in Formula 1 especially Ferrari. If F1 ever loses that, then it will be no more special for me than watching an IRL race with a bunch of Billy Unknowns driving a bunch of cars for teams I've never heard of on tracks that have no historical meaning (except for Indy). F1 needs Ferrari just as much as it needs Monza, Spa and open-wheels. As far as this whole Ferrari disqualification fiasco goes, I really blame both Ferrari *and* the FIA. Ferrari should have no excuse for having parts on the car that are illegal, at the same time the FIA should scrutineer the cars after qualifying and sanction any exceptions then, not after a race is completed, the champagne sprayed and the fans have gone home only to find out that what we watched and cheered was all some dream that had no meaning. This shows a tremendous amount of disrespect for the fans. The FIA and Ferrari really managed to make Formula 1 look very stupid with this whole affair, and it really puts a stain on this whole 1999 season for me. We have a Championship decided in the seedy offices of politicking egomaniac organizers and team managers who may or may not have bent the rules to get an extra edge instead of by drivers competing with each other on the track. This is the same way that FIA politics and selective rules ruined the 1994 F1 season, with those phoney suspensions and disqualifications of Schumacher etc and of course the accident between Hill and Schumacher in Australia that decided the championship (if Schumacher did crash into Hill out of desperation, I can't blame him too much after all the offtrack B.S. that the FIA did to try and control the championship) In the end it's the fans who lose and they've turned Suzuka into a race that is meaningless. Seeyas on the track. --John (Joao) Silva GPL Ferrari driver. Powerslide Racing Team - GMSS League F1 division. Rossi Razzi Racing Team - IGPLC League F2 division.

I beg your pardon, and please excuse my apoplectic fit, but it's about time that the FIA, and their cronies, *REMOVED* the negative bias that they have directed towards Ferrari over the past 30 years. As for your mistaken assertion regarding one member of Ferrari being a mobile chicane in order to allow the other an easier run, I seem to recall the situation being reveresd, where Irvine assisted Schumacher in at least one race. I also recalll Coulthard attempting to try it this year as well. You are overlooking the fact that Messrs Moseley and Ecclestone, Denis and Hakkinen cannot have their cake and eat it too. Formula Once (deliberate spelling) is a team sport.....there must be two cars and the teams vie for a Manufacturers Championship each season. Therefore team tactics are perfectly acceptable. (In earlier days it was not uncommon for a second/third string driver to be called into the pits so that his car could be used by the team member with the most points or in the best position to win the race.) My disappointment, Mr. Black, stems from the complete lack of sportsmanship that now epitomises F1. This latest example, where a protest is lodged over 10mm of carbon fibre when the protesting team were soundly and convincingly beaten by the better team tactics on the day, is simply one occasion in a whole string of them. Ten millimetres of carbon fibre did not beat McLaren. Ferrari could have removed the barge-boards and still Coulthard and Hakkinen would have still been up against it. And don't sell yourself short....of course your thoughts matter. It's just that in this instant I don't agree with them. BK Lagwagon <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7udv0o$feq$[email hidden]... > All I can say is that if the FIA decides to become biased toward one group > (Ferrari), they are making a big mistake. Just because it is a big name > doesn't mean that they can go easy on them. Do you think if a smallerteam

Quoted text (29 lines)

> won and was found to have the same illegal specs, they should also be let > go? > > And speaking of F1...about Eddie Irvine...If he were really a champion > caliber driver, he wouldn't need his big brother holding up the other > drivers and slowing down on the track so that he could win. Just my > thoughts. But they really don't matter do they? > > J Black > > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I hate to say this, I really do, but if the disqualification is upheld > > following the Ferrari appeal, I hope that they withdraw from F1. > > This is not an opinion that I arrive at lightly....not after following > > Grands Prix for almost as long as Murray Walker. But by turning their > backs > > on F1 Ferrari, in my opinion, could have the greatest effect on the > "sport" > > since that egotistical meglomaniac took control. > > > > Just the opinion of a once-dedicated F1 fan. > > > > > > Barton Spencer Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Ferrari will meet with the FIA in Geneva tomorrow -- Hakkinen's > > > championship status is neither confirmed or otherwise until Ferrari's > > > appeal has been heard. The barge boards in question are exactly the

same > > > ones used (and checked by FIA Tech) at the last race (N�rburgring for > > > the Luxembourg GP). I think Bernie better watch which way he steps on > > > this one -- the EU is already less than thrilled with hismanipulation.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > > > > BB > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----------== 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 > ==----- > > -----------== 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 ==-----

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > I tried to check it out from Oz with my little short-wave radio but the > atmospherics were playing up and the best I could get was Radio Caracas. I > believe it's just as good. Better, since it comes from a civilized country with an understandable language... ;^) BB

Ed Bain wrote: > > Here's a question for the F1 fans out there. When was the > last time that watching an F1 race made your heart beat > REALLY fast? > In person? USGP 1974, James Hunt and the practically unsponsored Hesketh 308C storming to an incredible 3d-place, beating out Emerson Fittipaldi's high-buck Player's-sponsored Lotus 72D; same race, the independent John Watson gaining a nearly-as-impressive 5th place in the Goldie-Hexagon (very low buck) Brabham BT44, beating elf-sponsored Patrick Depailler's Tyrrell. Before that, Jody Scheckter's 1972 F1 debut at Watkins Glen in 1972 in a McLaren M19A. He only finished 9th, but while he ran, he was absolutely electrifying, just as wild as in his F5000 days.

Formula One........a time when a privateer could compete on equal terms with the manufacturers. A time when laughter was more common in pit lane than grumbles. A time when a team in trouble and requiring a part would have it loaned by a rival. A time when the drivers socialised before and after the races. A time when losing a race was done so graciously. A time when winning was done with equal grace . Formula One.......a time when it was a sport in the purest sense of the word. Barton Spencer Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > I hate to say this, I really do, but if the disqualification is upheld > > following the Ferrari appeal, I hope that they withdraw from F1. > > This is not an opinion that I arrive at lightly....not after following > > Grands Prix for almost as long as Murray Walker. But by turning theirbacks > > on F1 Ferrari, in my opinion, could have the greatest effect on the"sport"

Quoted text (29 lines)

> > since that egotistical meglomaniac took control. > > > > Just the opinion of a once-dedicated F1 fan. > > Bruce-- > > I couldn't agree more. This "Championship" has been engineered from the > beginning of the season by that ageing Machiavelli-in-Guccis and his > tousle-haired Son-Of-Oswald crony. If Enzo were alive today, Ecclestone > would be soaking his Armani slacks at this moment -- no, let me take > that back: if Enzo were alive today, this shit wouldn't happen, because > he WOULD pull the team, and FIAT would back him all the way. 20 years > between Championships is -- correct me if I'm wrong -- a record for > Ferrari, and there's no doubt whatsoever that under Ecclestone's > self-imposed reign (since he finally ousted that doddering fossil > Jean-Marie Balestre), British teams have enjoyed a singularly benevolent > shake from FIA, FISA, FOCA, FOA, and every other increasingly grotesque > manifestation of "Bernie Ecclestone LLC." And I hope this finally spurs > the EU to put some teeth in their investigations. This is a black day > for F1 fans. If this isn't overturned, I hope the twin megalomaniacs > Tony George and Bernard Ecclestone meet for the 2000 USGP and are torn > apart by the mob of 150 or so that will turn up. > > That's it for F1 -- GPL is more than a memory of great cars, drivers, > and tracks -- it's also a reminder that there once was a sport called > Formula One...long since departed, alas. > > BB >

-----------== 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 ==-----

It doesn't have to be in temper, nor does it need a tantrum. A simple failure to register for the 2000 season would suffice. Trouble is, FIAT won't do it. But, by God, Enzo would have! :o) Zonkie <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7uemtn$dsn$[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, "Bruce Kennewell"<[email hidden]> wrote: > > >I hate to say this, I really do, but if the disqualification is upheld > >following the Ferrari appeal, I hope that they withdraw from F1. > >This is not an opinion that I arrive at lightly....not after following > >Grands Prix for almost as long as Murray Walker. But by turning theirbacks > >on F1 Ferrari, in my opinion, could have the greatest effect on the"sport"

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >since that egotistical meglomaniac took control. > > > >Just the opinion of a once-dedicated F1 fan. > > > > That would be the temper tantrum that i would expect of Ferrari. In which > case, F1 is better off without them. > > Z. > > > Please remove my_pants when replying.

-----------== 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 ==-----

You are overlooking the terms of the Concorde Agreement, Daniel. Daniel Thorpe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Refuelling was brought in when the > Ferrari V12 was the thirstiest engine in the field (the others had already > gone to V10s) and would benefit the most from not having to carry a whole > race's worth of benzine. After a couple years of pit fires, neardisasters, > and lugging those bulky, dangerous, pressurized rigs around the world most > teams had had enough, but Ferrari's continuing veto has kept theridiculous > practice alive. -----------== 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 ==-----

Thanks for that incisive statement but I doubt if a barge-board is "engined" to a tolerance of one-thousandth of a millimetre. Zonkie <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7uen0o$dsn$[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>,[email hidden] (Ed Bain) wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> B > > > >Amen brother. I heard Derek Daly on Speedvision tonight > >say that it would be a -severe- blow to F1 to allow a 1 cm > >error in the board to completely alter the championship. > >I totally agree with him and I would feel the same way if > >the teams were reversed. > > Um, i hate to point this out, but when you design and engine cars to

1000th's > of a mm accuracy, 10mm out is a fuck of a long way to happen on "accident"or > without malace. They deserve the disqualification. > > Z. > > > Please remove my_pants when replying. -----------== 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 ==-----

So one should only be punished if points are scored when using a device that doesn't measure?? Richard G Clegg <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7uenaj$282$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (26 lines)

> John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote: > : On Sun, 17 Oct 1999 16:37:26 -0500, Barton Spencer Brown > : <[email hidden]> wrote: > > :>Ferrari will meet with the FIA in Geneva tomorrow -- Hakkinen's > :>championship status is neither confirmed or otherwise until Ferrari's > :>appeal has been heard. The barge boards in question are exactly the same > :>ones used (and checked by FIA Tech) at the last race (Nurburgring for > :>the Luxembourg GP). I think Bernie better watch which way he steps on > :>this one -- the EU is already less than thrilled with his manipulation. > > : Excuse me? The boarda re either _legal_ or _illegal_, yes? I watched > : Ross Brawn on TV telling everyone that they were illegal, why and by > : how much - seems fairly clear cut. Saying that they were used in > : Nurburgring and Luxembourg adds only that the Ferrari was illegal at > : those tracks as well as Sepang, it doesn't make the car legal. > > Nurburgring was the Luxembourg GP - and yes, Brawn was saying that > the car was also illegal at that race. (Which is not wholly relevant > since it scored no points there). > > -- > 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

-----------== 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 ==-----

Jesus! Well, if *that* made your heart beat fast, Richard, get on down to your doctor and have a check-up *really* quickly!! Richard G Clegg <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7uenf5$282$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Ed Bain <[email hidden]> wrote: > : Here's a question for the F1 fans out there. When was the > : last time that watching an F1 race made your heart beat > : REALLY fast? > > Luxembourg GP this year. > > -- > 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

-----------== 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 ==-----

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROTFLMAO!!!! Ohhhhh, brother.............you need your *own* radio show!!! :o) Barton Spencer Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> The Dude wrote: > > I haven't respected a Ferrari driver since GV in '82. > > > THAT would explain the general air of depression and despondency in > Maranello since that time. I understand Luca deMontezemolo and Piero > Lardi Ferrari never start their day without first tuning in to your > globally-syndicated show to take the pulse of the Indianapolis "man in > the street" > > > We go after the type of listener who has an IQ above their shoe size. > > Fooled any yet? >

-----------== 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 ==-----

Oh, and don't hold your breath on this one. While waiting for the "Official Ruling" from Gaalctic Racing's World Headquarters, 90.9 FM Indianapolis, B91, the lesser IQs of the FIA will wait until at least Friday to make a ruling (maybe that's how long it takes 90.9FMs radio waves to reach Paris): From this morning's Autosport: <<World Champion-elect Mika Hakkinen and Eddie Irvine must wait at least until the end of the week to know if this season's title race is all over. The FIA announced this morning that Ferrari's appeal against disqualification in yesterday's Malaysian Grand Prix will be heard on Friday in Paris. Race winner Irvine and his Ferrari team-mate and runner-up Michael Schumacher were excluded from the race results after scrutineers found the barge poles on their cars were the wrong size. The Italian team's technical driector Ross Brawn said the error was not intentional and that the mistake had not given the pair any racing advantage. However, their disqualification effectively handed the driver's title to Hakkinen and the constructors' title to McLaren with just one race to go, in Japan on October 31. The FIA has set up an independent Court of Appeal to hear Ferrari's case and the sport's governing body's representative, Francisco Longanesi, said, 'It could take five or six days before a hearing is scheduled. Meanwhile we wait breathlessly to hear the all-important ruling from The Dupe�'>>

Oh, and don't hold your breath on this one. While waiting for the "Official Ruling" from Galactic Racing's World Headquarters, 90.9 FM Indianapolis, B91, the lesser IQs of the FIA will take until at least Friday to make a ruling on the controversial finish of the Malaysian GP (maybe that's how long it takes 90.9 FM's radio waves to reach Paris): From this morning's Autosport: <<World Champion-elect Mika Hakkinen and Eddie Irvine must wait at least until the end of the week to know if this season's title race is all over. The FIA announced this morning that Ferrari's appeal against disqualification in yesterday's Malaysian Grand Prix will be heard on Friday in Paris. Race winner Irvine and his Ferrari team-mate and runner-up Michael Schumacher were excluded from the race results after scrutineers found the barge poles on their cars were the wrong size. The Italian team's technical director Ross Brawn said the error was not intentional and that the mistake had not given the pair any racing advantage. However, their disqualification effectively handed the driver's title to Hakkinen and the constructors' title to McLaren with just one race to go, in Japan on October 31. The FIA has set up an independent Court of Appeal to hear Ferrari's case and the sport's governing body's representative, Francisco Longanesi, said, 'It could take five or six days before a hearing is scheduled. Meanwhile we wait breathlessly to hear the all-important ruling from The Dupe�'>>

On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:49:27 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I beg your pardon, and please excuse my apoplectic fit, but it's about time >that the FIA, and their cronies, *REMOVED* the negative bias that they have >directed towards Ferrari over the past 30 years. I'd love to hear examples of that - if anything the FIA have bent over backwards to keep Ferrari happy. Remember the "Draconian penalties" for anyone caught infringing the rules? Oh, except Ferrari.... >As for your mistaken assertion regarding one member of Ferrari being a >mobile chicane in order to allow the other an easier run, I seem to recall >the situation being reveresd, where Irvine assisted Schumacher in at least >one race. I also recalll Coulthard attempting to try it this year as well. Coulthard has been racing Hakkinen all year - no way would he be holding up a Ferrari while Mika got away as Mika would be getting away rom him as well. >You are overlooking the fact that Messrs Moseley and Ecclestone, Denis and >Hakkinen cannot have their cake and eat it too. Formula Once (deliberate >spelling) is a team sport.....there must be two cars and the teams vie for a >Manufacturers Championship each season. Therefore team tactics are >perfectly acceptable. I like the team tactics aspect, but it can be taken too far - cycle racing and rugby union a faw years back being examples of where team tactics designed to win detract from the reason the sport existed in the first place, to entertain. FWIW I don't subscribe to the Ron Dennis view that Sepang was too much - I thought Schumacher drove superbly and if DC can pass Mika should be able to also. In fact my wife, who normally hates F1, was enthralled by the whole race - EI worried by DC who has nothing to lose, MH similarly worried by MS. DC passes MS wildly, chasing EI to pressure him into an error, or lunge a pass (which EI must concede to) then slow EI to bring him into range of the MS/MH battle - ripping stuff :-) >My disappointment, Mr. Black, stems from the complete lack of sportsmanship >that now epitomises F1. This latest example, where a protest is lodged over >10mm of carbon fibre when the protesting team were soundly and convincingly >beaten by the better team tactics on the day, is simply one occasion in a >whole string of them. That is not true - the illegality of the car was discovered by the stewards without neither the intervention nor protest from McLaren. >Ten millimetres of carbon fibre did not beat McLaren. >Ferrari could have removed the barge-boards and still Coulthard and Hakkinen >would have still been up against it. Probably, but we don't know that. Illegal is illegal, that's why the rules exist. Suppose that an aero improvement brings big benefits, the more area the better - how much over the regulations are you allowed - 1mm? 5mm? 10mm? The answer is 0mm, that's why the rules exist. With a budget of $100m+ if Ferrari can't find an irregularity on a car they designed but which a steward spotted in a post-race check, they can hardly point the finger at anyone. It's a _very_ unsatisfactory way to end the race and the season, but I'd have no respect for F1 if they failed to DQ Ferrari. Cheers! John

They're designing bodywork to within .001mm? That's .00039 of an inch!! Jeez, no wonder those cars are so expensive! Zonkie wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Um, i hate to point this out, but when you design and engine cars to 1000th's > of a mm accuracy, 10mm out is a fuck of a long way to happen on "accident" or > without malace. They deserve the disqualification. > > Z. > > Please remove my_pants when replying.

-- Bob Curtin Worcester Area Strategy & Tactics Exchange http://www.tiac.net/users/ten10ths/ "If God had intended men to join the Army he would have given us green, baggy skin"

I thought about that too. F1 today is hampered by rules that are overly strict and absolute, COMBINED with rules that are really impossible to judge properly. Every race I have watched this year, I thought: "Heck, how can they get away with tires with absolutely no grooves?". I mean, when you're going a lot of laps on supersofts like Schumacher did, the grooves are smeared and almost non-visible. I should think that the tires give more grip after a certain amount of laps, simply because the tires start creating grip in the grooves... How ironic it is that Ferrari might get disqualified because of an excessive 10 mm of a non-important part, and NOT because Schummy drove his tires without grooves! Ridiculous! I am not all that in favour of Ferrari these days, but, this disqualification takes away any excitement from the last race... It's like the soccer world championship where a referee gives a penalty wrongly to one team, effectively ruining any fairly won victory. Last, I'd like to say that Ferrari must feel pretty stupid/awkward after this disqualification (but I don't get surprised if the appeal is granted). How can they use parts that are clearly violating the rules? Now, that is beyond my understanding. I already knew FIA, Bernie and Max were full of crap, I didn't know Ferrari was morons... That is how they must feel right now. ---Asgeir--- Goy Larsen wrote:

Quoted text (24 lines)

> Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > My disappointment, Mr. Black, stems from the complete lack of sportsmanship > > that now epitomises F1. This latest example, where a protest is lodged over > > 10mm of carbon fibre when the protesting team were soundly and convincingly > > beaten by the better team tactics on the day, is simply one occasion in a > > whole string of them. Ten millimetres of carbon fibre did not beat McLaren. > > Ferrari could have removed the barge-boards and still Coulthard and Hakkinen > > would have still been up against it. > > Just for the record Bruce, according to Autosport, the "illegal" > bargeboards was discovered in a routine post race inspection and not > because of a protest lodged by any other team, although McLaren was > thinking about protesting the tyre wear on the Ferrari's, apparently > they had worn below the required minimum thread height, nice to have all > these rules that are so easy to police ....... > > -- > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ > "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/

Perhaps this is the key in getting your wives interested, letting her know who has what to loose, who's got what to win, who is teaming up with who, and what deals have been made in the pits? Women tend to be more interested in the social relations than the competitive thing, huh? What do I know... But I found DC's pass on Schummy exhilarating, I really did. Here he has driven in-line an entire season, and finally he passes the greatest line-defender of them all... hehe, I like that! ---Asgeir--- John Wallace wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > I like the team tactics aspect, but it can be taken too far - cycle > racing and rugby union a faw years back being examples of where team > tactics designed to win detract from the reason the sport existed in > the first place, to entertain. FWIW I don't subscribe to the Ron > Dennis view that Sepang was too much - I thought Schumacher drove > superbly and if DC can pass Mika should be able to also. In fact my > wife, who normally hates F1, was enthralled by the whole race - EI > worried by DC who has nothing to lose, MH similarly worried by MS. DC > passes MS wildly, chasing EI to pressure him into an error, or lunge a > pass (which EI must concede to) then slow EI to bring him into range > of the MS/MH battle - ripping stuff :-) > >

"Ray M" <[email hidden]> wrote: >What are barge boards? I read the expression here for the first time, too. Anyway, the offending parts in question are those smallish boards located in front of the sidepod air intake (where the radiators are located). As it seems, those boards were a bit too long and did not fit inside the template used by the stewards for measuring the cars. I still don't understand how this could happen: Ferrari must have known that tampering with the dimensions of the car would be noticed. Deliberate cheating with such a part would be just too stupid. This leaves a mistake as the other possible explanation. Which, in turn, would also imply a high level of stupidity -- most of all, since all authorities seem to agree that no measurable benefit could come from this slight change in dimensions. BTW, I disagree with those who feel that the decision to disqualify Ferrari for this offense is a disgrace for F1. If the verdict is not overruled, I will regain some faith in the authenticity of F1 as a sports event (as opposed to entertainment). Why? Because the disqualification will diminish public interest in the Suzuka race. The officials will earn less money due to this decision. This again means that the decision cannot possibly be a marketing ploy (like the one regarding the McLaren brakes in the last season: "They are too fast, so let's slow them down artificially so the series remains interesting!") Therefore, the disqualification shows a sportsmanlike and objective approach: Ferrari built cars that do not comply with the rules, so Ferrari has to be disqualified - even though it is very bad for marketing. Having said that, I hate when such things happen. I want the winner of a race to be the first one who passes the finish line. I hope F1 introduces a thorough technical examination of the cars *prior* to the start of the race: the cars have to be measured and then parked in a 'parc ferme' until the start. This would help to prevent disappointments like this one from happening again. -- Wolfgang Preiss \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome. [email hidden] \ Spam (UCE) is not welcome will lead to the cancellation [email hidden] \ of your account. I mean it. Spammer, you have been warned.

In article <[email hidden]>, Barton Spencer Brown <[email hidden]> writes >Ferrari will meet with the FIA in Geneva tomorrow -- Hakkinen's >championship status is neither confirmed or otherwise until Ferrari's >appeal has been heard. The barge boards in question are exactly the same >ones used (and checked by FIA Tech) at the last race (N�rburgring for >the Luxembourg GP). I think Bernie better watch which way he steps on >this one -- the EU is already less than thrilled with his manipulation. You are getting yourself all carried away here. Policies and rules exist and should be implemented with the same objectivity for a Ferrari as for a Minardi. If a team have broken the rules then they should take the pain for it. Yes it would be a huge blow for F1 if Ferrari are disqualified, but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. You are confusing the two issues. Mart -- Mart Hugh Rogers

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Ed Bain) wrote: B > >Amen brother. I heard Derek Daly on Speedvision tonight >say that it would be a -severe- blow to F1 to allow a 1 cm >error in the board to completely alter the championship. >I totally agree with him and I would feel the same way if >the teams were reversed. Um, i hate to point this out, but when you design and engine cars to 1000th's of a mm accuracy, 10mm out is a fuck of a long way to happen on "accident" or without malace. They deserve the disqualification. Z. Please remove my_pants when replying.

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>I hate to say this, I really do, but if the disqualification is upheld >following the Ferrari appeal, I hope that they withdraw from F1. >This is not an opinion that I arrive at lightly....not after following >Grands Prix for almost as long as Murray Walker. But by turning their backs >on F1 Ferrari, in my opinion, could have the greatest effect on the "sport" >since that egotistical meglomaniac took control. > >Just the opinion of a once-dedicated F1 fan. >

That would be the temper tantrum that i would expect of Ferrari. In which case, F1 is better off without them. Z. Please remove my_pants when replying.

>So you didn't have respect for Alain Prost or Nigel Mansell, or.. ? I never like Prost after his "incidents" with Senna, and Nigel always seemed to be an @sshole. I guess, I did like Jean Alesi's determintation though. -The Dude� Check out The Dude's radio show on 90.9 FM Indianapolis, B91.

Lagwagon wrote: > > All I can say is that if the FIA decides to become biased toward one group(Ferrari), they are making a big mistake. Just because it is a big name... As opposed to to that miniscule underdog DaimlerChrysler/Mercedes Benz, I guess... ;^) BB

The Dude wrote: > I haven't respected a Ferrari driver since GV in '82. THAT would explain the general air of depression and despondency in Maranello since that time. I understand Luca deMontezemolo and Piero Lardi Ferrari never start their day without first tuning in to your globally-syndicated show to take the pulse of the Indianapolis "man in the street" > We go after the type of listener who has an IQ above their shoe size. Fooled any yet?

Ed Bain wrote: > > > So you didn't have respect for Alain Prost or Nigel Mansell, or.. ? > Apparently their IQ's didn't fit the profile of The Dupe�'s highly-selective demographics... BB

So if you see one in the street, you run them off the road? The Dude <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I haven't respected a Ferrari driver since GV in '82. > -----------== 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 ==-----

I tried to check it out from Oz with my little short-wave radio but the atmospherics were playing up and the best I could get was Radio Caracas. I believe it's just as good. Barton Spencer Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Thank the merciful gods that I never have to worry about checking out > The Dude's radio show. -----------== 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 ==-----

Lastest statement from Jean Todt affirms that Ferrari does agree the boards were not in legal spec, but he thinks that since there was not a conscious effort to cheat nor any advantage gained, that the penalty is too severe. The techincal director of Jordan has stated in his opinion that the boards would not have provided any benefit. There are precedents for allowing unintentional violations with no benefits to be ignored. And I think that for the good of the sport the FIA needs to be flexible. I don't know how F1 does their pre-race tech inspection, but it would seem that something in plain view would have been caught. After the race scrutinering may be correct by the rules, but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the fans. The FIA court doesn't meet till Friday, and then it might be a few days till they rule. I hope they reinstate Ferrari's win, because it will make for a great race at Suzuka!! In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] wrote: > On Sun, 17 Oct 1999 16:37:26 -0500, Barton Spencer Brown > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Ferrari will meet with the FIA in Geneva tomorrow -- Hakkinen's > >championship status is neither confirmed or otherwise until Ferrari's > >appeal has been heard. The barge boards in question are exactly thesame > >ones used (and checked by FIA Tech) at the last race (N�rburgring for > >the Luxembourg GP). I think Bernie better watch which way he steps on > >this one -- the EU is already less than thrilled with hismanipulation.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Excuse me? The boarda re either _legal_ or _illegal_, yes? I watched > Ross Brawn on TV telling everyone that they were illegal, why and by > how much - seems fairly clear cut. Saying that they were used in > Nurburgring and Luxembourg adds only that the Ferrari was illegal at > those tracks as well as Sepang, it doesn't make the car legal. > > Cheers! > John >

-- Email: [email hidden] Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

>Thank the merciful gods that I never have to worry about checking out >The Dude's radio show. Good thing. We go after the type of listener who has an IQ above their shoe size. >Yeah, I'm sure that with a multi-billion-dollar >championship at stake, Todt and Byrne are going to fiddle with 2mm worth >of barge board trailing edge. Fortunately, all speculation is useless, >and will be a moot point after Ferrari's appeal. > You'd be surprised... Either way, no matter if they were used last race or not, or if they give an advantage, if the rules say not to use them, than you don't. Thank the merciful gods that Ferrari hasn't yet won the championship. I haven't respected a Ferrari driver since GV in '82. -The Dude� Check out The Dude's radio show on 90.9 FM Indianapolis, B91.

The thing i dont get is theyve obviously been using the same thing all thru practice and qualifying...why didnt they catch the infraction then? I sure hope the FIA over turns the (bullshit) ruling and Irvines victory stands. I think maybe the fact Ron Dennis was shittin kittens (or so i heard) after the race might have had something to do with this. Chris

It was 10mm in error, not 2mm, but BS all the same. I am in the camp of many that believe Ron Dennis knew about this since Nurburgring (or before), and simply chose to wait for the most beneficial time for McLaren to snitch to the FIA about it. I'm not a conspiracy type of guy... but when the shoe fits, it's pretty obvious (to me). I also believe the FIA circus scrutinizers have an implicit obligation to share with any team the results of FIA scrutinization of that teams car. I find it reprehensible the FIA needed McLaren to point out the problem for them :( (if indeed that is the case, which I believe it is). I also believe Dennis' feigned sad feelings at the result of the DQ are a sham for PR purposes only. That's just my opinion. I think the guy is a 2-bit fish. Rules are rules. If Ferrari is DQ'd, I find the circumstances rather despicable, but facts are facts and rules are rules and must be followed. It will be a sad, sad day in my world if the DQ stands up, which I believe it will :( Such is life. Anyway you look at it, though, I think this whole is bad for F1 on the whole. How the FIA scrutinized the Scuderia over two race events and never once checked the barge boards is unforgiveable IMO. Bottom line, though, it was Ferrari's responsibility to adhere to the rules, and they failed to do so. If the DQ is upheld, Todt has nobody to blame but himself, regardless of how rediculously harsh the penalty is, IMO. Interesting weekend to be sure :( Schumacher was brilliant beyond words... how people continue to disrespect this guy is beyond me. He's obnoxious and arrogant to be sure... to the extreme... but he is obviously THE BEST pilot on the planet right now. How he covers the McLarens by nearly 1 full second in qualifying is beyond me... Mika and David must feel like morons, driving the best car on the planet but a full second adrift of the master. How long has it been since a non- winner of a race so completely dominated the entire race in every way? Hammer Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

<snip> > Here's a question for the F1 fans out there. When was the > last time that watching an F1 race made your heart beat > REALLY fast? watching a replay of an online GPL race about two months ago... :)

What are barge boards?

John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote: : On Sun, 17 Oct 1999 16:37:26 -0500, Barton Spencer Brown : <[email hidden]> wrote: :>Ferrari will meet with the FIA in Geneva tomorrow -- Hakkinen's :>championship status is neither confirmed or otherwise until Ferrari's :>appeal has been heard. The barge boards in question are exactly the same :>ones used (and checked by FIA Tech) at the last race (Nurburgring for :>the Luxembourg GP). I think Bernie better watch which way he steps on :>this one -- the EU is already less than thrilled with his manipulation. : Excuse me? The boarda re either _legal_ or _illegal_, yes? I watched : Ross Brawn on TV telling everyone that they were illegal, why and by : how much - seems fairly clear cut. Saying that they were used in : Nurburgring and Luxembourg adds only that the Ferrari was illegal at : those tracks as well as Sepang, it doesn't make the car legal. Nurburgring was the Luxembourg GP - and yes, Brawn was saying that the car was also illegal at that race. (Which is not wholly relevant since it scored no points there). -- 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

Ed Bain <[email hidden]> wrote: : Here's a question for the F1 fans out there. When was the : last time that watching an F1 race made your heart beat : REALLY fast? Luxembourg GP this year. -- 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

They are the seperate body panels located , one on each side, behind the front wheel and just in front of the radiator inlet. Their purpose is to smooth the turbulent airflow coming off the front wheel and rediirect it out to the side of the side pod. They also protect the radiators from debris thrown up by the front wheel. Think they are called barge boards becuase of their very slight resemblance to the side mounted leeboards on a sailing barge. David Ray M <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8PyO3.1386$[email hidden]... > What are barge boards? > >

What are barge boards?

Oh, and don't hold your breath on this one. While waiting for the "Official Ruling" from Gaalctic Racing's World Headquarters, 90.9 FM Indianapolis, B91, the lesser IQs of the FIA will wait until at least Friday to make a ruling (maybe that's how long it takes 90.9FMs radio waves to reach Paris): From this morning's Autosport: <<World Champion-elect Mika Hakkinen and Eddie Irvine must wait at least until the end of the week to know if this season's title race is all over. The FIA announced this morning that Ferrari's appeal against disqualification in yesterday's Malaysian Grand Prix will be heard on Friday in Paris. Race winner Irvine and his Ferrari team-mate and runner-up Michael Schumacher were excluded from the race results after scrutineers found the barge poles on their cars were the wrong size. The Italian team's technical driector Ross Brawn said the error was not intentional and that the mistake had not given the pair any racing advantage. However, their disqualification effectively handed the driver's title to Hakkinen and the constructors' title to McLaren with just one race to go, in Japan on October 31. The FIA has set up an independent Court of Appeal to hear Ferrari's case and the sport's governing body's representative, Francisco Longanesi, said, 'It could take five or six days before a hearing is scheduled. Meanwhile we wait breathlessly to hear the all-important ruling from The Dupe?'>>

Bruce Kennewell wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > My disappointment, Mr. Black, stems from the complete lack of sportsmanship > that now epitomises F1. This latest example, where a protest is lodged over > 10mm of carbon fibre when the protesting team were soundly and convincingly > beaten by the better team tactics on the day, is simply one occasion in a > whole string of them. Ten millimetres of carbon fibre did not beat McLaren. > Ferrari could have removed the barge-boards and still Coulthard and Hakkinen > would have still been up against it.

Just for the record Bruce, according to Autosport, the "illegal" bargeboards was discovered in a routine post race inspection and not because of a protest lodged by any other team, although McLaren was thinking about protesting the tyre wear on the Ferrari's, apparently they had worn below the required minimum thread height, nice to have all these rules that are so easy to police ....... -- Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/

Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote: : My disappointment, Mr. Black, stems from the complete lack of sportsmanship : that now epitomises F1. C'mon Bruce - I thought you _remembered_ the old days of F1. In the 70s and 80s you could play "spot the cheat". Or how about playing "which teams used the following cheats": Overly tall car and a nail covertly inserted into the tyre after the race to get it under the scrutineers ruler. Underweight car and special "lead lined" engine cover put in place for scrutineering. "Water cooled" brakes which happened to loose all that heavy water at some point during the race (allowing the car to run underweight). Covert flip of a bit of paper across the electronic eye to shave a few tenths off a qualifying time. I'm sure that when you think back you can come up with your own. Formula One has _always_ had its politics and its dodgy dealings - it's just that we think of the older ones as "the whacky exploits they used to get away with" and the newer ones as "that scandal which would never have happened in the old days. I don't know enough about the 60s to comment but do you really believe that the 70s and 80s were more sporting? -- 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

Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote: : Richard G Clegg <[email hidden]> wrote in message :> :> Luxembourg GP this year. : Jesus! Well, if *that* made your heart beat fast, Richard, get on down to : your doctor and have a check-up *really* quickly!! (Grin) Well, what do _you_ look for in a race Bruce? That had passing for the lead and for major positions, crashing out of the lead, weather effects and mechanical failure. What are _you_ looking for in a race? 70% drop out through mechanical failure and the winner 2 minutes ahead like in the 60s? -- 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

Richard G Clegg wrote: > > (Grin) Well, what do _you_ look for in a race Bruce? That had passing > for the lead and for major positions, crashing out of the lead, weather > effects and mechanical failure. What are _you_ looking for in a race? > 70% drop out through mechanical failure and the winner 2 minutes ahead > like in the 60s? My fav in that race was when the Ferrari mechanics failed to show up with EI's right rear wheel, that was hillarious -- Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/

Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote: : Richard G Clegg wrote: :> :> (Grin) Well, what do _you_ look for in a race Bruce? That had passing :> for the lead and for major positions, crashing out of the lead, weather :> effects and mechanical failure. What are _you_ looking for in a race? :> 70% drop out through mechanical failure and the winner 2 minutes ahead :> like in the 60s? : My fav in that race was when the Ferrari mechanics failed to show up : with EI's right rear wheel, that was hillarious Well, there were admittedly moments of comedy as well as drama :-) -- 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

> Ed Bain wrote: > > Here's a question for the F1 fans out there. When was the > last time that watching an F1 race made your heart beat > REALLY fast? The Dude wrote: > > I haven't respected a Ferrari driver since GV in '82. In my opinion we have here a very good question and one good (if not completed) statement, i'll try to explain my views on both. France's GP in '81 (i think) where G. Villeneuve and R. Arnoux had their epic battles for a few laps, would sum it up for me (also not forgetting G.V. practice lap at the Glen under rain where he got a 27 seconds lead!). Zandvoort where G.V. passed a Williams on the outside at Tarzan, etc, etc... My point is that since that era, i haven't seen as good a pilot as he was. Since then Senna, Prost, or Schumacher might be very good in their own terms, but they all had the same things going on with them, they put out their opponents of the tracks at on point or another. You think we would be able to see a battle between Schumacher and Hakkinen like Arnoux & Villeneuve? I don't think so, remember Schumi and Jacques V. in the last race of '97 or Senna and Prost in Japan.... Oh and one more thing, the F.I.A. is like the Pisa tower.... It always bend on the Italian side IMO.... My $ 0.02.... C. Giroux.

Barton Spencer Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... <SNIP> > Race winner Irvine and his Ferrari team-mate and runner-up Michael > Schumacher were > excluded from the race results after scrutineers found the barge poles > on their cars were the > wrong size. I'm stunned at how fast the Ferraris were running considering they were using barge poles. I wonder were they 10 foot ones.

: > > >Thank the merciful gods that Ferrari hasn't yet won the championship. > >I haven't respected a Ferrari driver since GV in '82. > > So you didn't have respect for Alain Prost or Nigel Mansell, or.. ? Or howabout Andretti! Come to that, Tambay did Gilles a great honour the year after his death by taking #27 to victory at Imola, the first time a Ferrari had run in Italy since the Zolder accident. He was quoted as saying that Gilles was riding in the car with him that day. "Victory was not ordered by the Tifosi today day, it was ordained". Mark > > -- > * rrevved at mindspring dot com > * unit.26 s.p.u.t.u.m. > * http://www.cabal.net > * http://www.sputum.com

Well maybe the FIA should be thinking about getting their own house in order before standing in judgement. If the Stewards had done their job correctly at the two previous races, this "cheat" bargeboard would have been discovered at a meeting where buggerall points were scored by Erve. I'm damned sure that Brawn would have had things sorted for this race where it really mattered. Mark Lagwagon <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7udv0o$feq$[email hidden]... > All I can say is that if the FIA decides to become biased toward one group > (Ferrari), they are making a big mistake. Just because it is a big name > doesn't mean that they can go easy on them. Do you think if a smallerteam

Quoted text (29 lines)

> won and was found to have the same illegal specs, they should also be let > go? > > And speaking of F1...about Eddie Irvine...If he were really a champion > caliber driver, he wouldn't need his big brother holding up the other > drivers and slowing down on the track so that he could win. Just my > thoughts. But they really don't matter do they? > > J Black > > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I hate to say this, I really do, but if the disqualification is upheld > > following the Ferrari appeal, I hope that they withdraw from F1. > > This is not an opinion that I arrive at lightly....not after following > > Grands Prix for almost as long as Murray Walker. But by turning their > backs > > on F1 Ferrari, in my opinion, could have the greatest effect on the > "sport" > > since that egotistical meglomaniac took control. > > > > Just the opinion of a once-dedicated F1 fan. > > > > > > Barton Spencer Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Ferrari will meet with the FIA in Geneva tomorrow -- Hakkinen's > > > championship status is neither confirmed or otherwise until Ferrari's > > > appeal has been heard. The barge boards in question are exactly the

same > > > ones used (and checked by FIA Tech) at the last race (N�rburgring for > > > the Luxembourg GP). I think Bernie better watch which way he steps on > > > this one -- the EU is already less than thrilled with hismanipulation.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > > > > BB > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----------== 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 > ==----- > >

[email hidden] says... > > As for your mistaken assertion regarding one member of Ferrari being a > mobile chicane in order to allow the other an easier run, I seem to recall > the situation being reveresd, where Irvine assisted Schumacher in at least > one race. I also recalll Coulthard attempting to try it this year as well. > Salo assisted Irvine at Spa when he was asked by the team to hold back Ralf Schumacher (that really made Williams and Head lose their cool) but other than that, we haven't seen anyone employ these kind of tactics this season, that is, before Malaysia. Unsurprisingly, it was once again Ferrari. Schumacher admittedly drove a brilliant race, being able to control Hakkinen by fluctuating his speed, lifting in high speed corners and immediately accelerating away while MH couldn't afford to take a risk of being put out of race with Irvine in lead. MS was certainly dominant in Malaysia, while the team's strategy was... um, less sporty. Not illegal though, like everyone knows. But Ferrari is hardly even a moral winner here. > > My disappointment, Mr. Black, stems from the complete lack of sportsmanship > that now epitomises F1. This latest example, where a protest is lodged over > 10mm of carbon fibre... > No protest. The officials discovered a rule infringement. Don't blame Mc for that. Unless you're one of conspiracy theorists wearing red shades. I suppose we'll always have to suffer from some lack of sportsmanship when big buckz are in the picture. Just remember that you're talking about a quality which Ferrari itself is not very famous of. > > Ten millimetres of carbon fibre did not beat McLaren. > I can see your frustration but are you REALLY such an expert in F1 aerodynamics that you can tell what kind of effect those modified barge boards actually had. For sure their shape was based on wind tunnel testing and not some fractal landscape generator. From formula1.com: Ferrari may have claimed that on this section of the car even a discrepancy of 10mm on a deflector would have no performance enhancing effect but according to Dr. Kevin Garry of the Cranfield Institute in the UK, where many teams come to develop their aerodynamic packages at it's College of Aeronautics, even the smallest of changes can have very pronounced effects: "There can be huge aero effects from something as small as a 1 or 2 millimetre discrepancy. Small changes can severely effect the separation of air downstream of the part and it may well induce a spiralling of the airflow known as vortex which can have profound implications for the airflow over the bodywork behind the part in question".

Barton 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 Barton Spencer Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... championship. >>

Quoted text (8 lines)

> .... > 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". >

Barton > > Akin to debrading, I think... > Erm, sorry, I need to look that one up too! LOL > > > I will do my best to keep my facts in order in future - can you help meby

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > telling me which of my facts was incorrect please? > > None of your facts were incorrect, they just weren't germane to the > question at hand. More a solecism than canard, if you catch my meaning... > > BB >

Fair enough, I was a bit OT and I didn't mean it to come accross the way it did. Lawrence

Lawrence Edwards wrote: > > 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. > Unfortunately, McLaren's official position is 180 degrees opposite to their original off-hand comments. They are now calling for the FIA to DQ Ferrari. http://www.atlasf1.com/news/1720.htm Dave -- ***************************************************** David A. Ewing 303-544-5454 Xilinx Boulder [email hidden] *****************************************************

On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 21:14:46 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote: >That's very true, John.....we can all live without any of the teams that >make up the current F1 circus, just as we can all live without other >long-standing traditions and institutions throughout the world. >What a forlorn place it would be. And what a terribly sad bunch would >populate it. I think the sad bunch are the current populace, for allowing sports to become that which they are now. I loved F1 in the 70's, thought it looked better in the 60's, but the 80's was the pinnacle - it also marked the watershed, delineating what it was to what it has become. 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

Liutger Franzen <[email hidden]> wrote: >> I am in the camp of many that believe Ron Dennis knew about this since >> Nurburgring (or before), and simply chose to wait for the most >> beneficial time for McLaren to snitch to the FIA about it. I'm not a > >I heard that the complaining team was Stewart not McLaren. or am I >wrong? Do not, I repeat, do NOT believe info provided by RTL television. ;) 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. [email hidden] \ Spam (UCE) is not welcome will lead to the cancellation [email hidden] \ of your account. I mean it. Spammer, you have been warned.

On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 20:03:29 +0100, "Lawrence Edwards" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>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.

The difference there is in proving it - you can easily see that Mika had no advantage, and the stopwatch shows what advantage cutting a chicane proffers - smart drivers slow down a touch to ensure that sector time is slower than normal. In addition the stewards have the luxury of time to deliberate and a range of options as a penalty. 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. >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. 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. >Hopefully Ron will be told where to go! It's not Ron's affair - it's the Ross, Jean and Eddie show. Cheers! John

Quoted text (21 lines)

>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 > > > >Barton Spencer Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >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". >> > >

Very true, Irvine isn't all that good.

FIA could learn something from NASCAR regarding this whole mess-- 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

Quoted text (31 lines)

> 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. > > >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 > > > > > > > >Barton Spencer Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:[email hidden]... > >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

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >> self-admitted false start, and Dennis also argued long and loud > >> (successfully, too) about his flouting of the FIA's ban on "team > >> orders". > >> > > > > >

John Wallace wrote in message <[email hidden]>... <snip> >That is not true - the illegality of the car was discovered by the >stewards without neither the intervention nor protest from McLaren. From: http://www.formula-1.co.uk/ 19/10/99 FIA deligate admits tip off Jo Bauer, the FIA's technical delegate who inspected the Ferraris following the race on Sunday, said today that "hints" had been made about Ferrari's rules violation, which ultimately led to the disqualification of both Ferrari drivers at the Malaysian Grand Prix. Bauer told the German newspaper Abendzeitung that he had planned to inspect the Ferrari cars earlier, but that the team had quickly covered them up and parked them in their garage. This latest development from Bauer suggests that Ferrari were aware of the illegality of their barge boards. "But other sides were giving certain hints," Bauer confirmed. In the interview, Bauer made reference to gossip in the paddock relating to Ferrari's body-work: "In Formula One, everyone inspects everyone else. They don't directly talk to one another, but when you walk through the racing camps, you hear comments. And you pick up on them later." When asked why the Ferrari cars were not checked at the Nurburgring race, Bauer said, "The cars are not selected specifically, but randomly." Many newspapers have been speculating on the source of the tip-off, in their latest issue to be release tomorrow, Germany's auto motor und sport magazine said, "The tip-off came from the McLaren-Mercedes camp." Although guilty of no offence, McLaren will not want to be seen as the team who killed the 1999 season. <snip> >It's a _very_ unsatisfactory way to end the race and the season, but >I'd have no respect for F1 if they failed to DQ Ferrari. > >Cheers! >John I'll agree with you there. We'll have to wait until friday to hear the FIA Council's ruling, but I'm hoping that they uphold the DQ against Ferrari and do not allow them the Constructor's points, but allow the drivers to retain their points towards the DC. don [|]-(_)-[|]

There is an Indy 2000 track for GP2 at: http://www.alphaf1.com/gp2/ It seems to follow the diagrams I've seen of the track fairly well. It's looks to be a Micky Mouse little circuit better suited to karts or Formula Fords. don [|]-(_)-[|] Barton Spencer Brown wrote in message <[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (13 lines)

>RoboCat wrote: >> >>or are they going to set red cones all over the infield like many >tracks do for the GT cars and other Formula racers? > >Boy, that would really piss off the golfers! I hope they do it for that >reason alone! I thought I'd seen the proposed layout somewhere, but >maybe that was just a hallucination based on a bad dream by Yogi Berra. >IMS sure has enough real estate to cram a decent road course into the >thing -- hope they do the right thing... > >Bart >

Zonkie wrote: > Utter pants. Ferrari is a souless corporate. F1 without ferrari would be F1 > without Marlboro. Sure, they've been around a bit and they've got history, but > all ferrari is in f1 is souless, pointless marketing. > ...he said with aplomb, or a plum. Bob Curtin Worcester Area Strategy & Tactics Exchange http://www.tiac.net/users/ten10ths/ "If God had intended men to join the Army he would have given us green, baggy skin"

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > HAHAHA! > Let's see what _YOU_ romanticise about in another 20 - 30 years, Mr. Meiji!! Music: Ten Inch Nails, Marilyn Manson (Now that was music, son!)Cars: Son of VW Beetle (Yeah, they don't make 'em like THAT anymore! Ok well maybe the VW3) Presidents: Bill Clinton (Now there was a man who cared! He felt our pain!) Food: Chucky Cheese (Nowadays, you can't get a decent pizza!) Wars: Desert Storm (Why back in the BIG one....) F1: (Back in MY day, those guys raced on pavement. They didn't race on rails...) -- Bob Curtin Worcester Area Strategy & Tactics Exchange http://www.tiac.net/users/ten10ths/ "If God had intended men to join the Army he would have given us green, baggy skin"

In article <[email hidden]>, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Zonkie wrote: >> >> Utter pants. Ferrari is a souless corporate. F1 without ferrari would be F1 >> without Marlboro. Sure, they've been around a bit and they've got history, > but >> all ferrari is in f1 is souless, pointless marketing. > >F1 without Ferrari would be like F1 without Lotus........... >

Lotus & Ferrari are nothing but souless corporates both without Mr C & mr E. Z. Please remove my_pants when replying.

>Lotus & Ferrari are nothing but souless corporates both > >without Mr C & mr E. I was a big Lotus fan, but remember how quickly they went down hill with out Colin? He was the "idea" man, the rest of the engineers just implemented his concepts. His personality (and Enzo's) defined those teams. Today, I agree, it's all corporate. The technology is better, but the personality is gone.

Barton Sorry - I didn't mean to excoriate you - that sounds painful by the way, I suppose I should look it up in the dictionary to find out what it means.... The only relevance was that you mentioned James Hunt and the revocation of James Hunt's dq seems to me to be relevant to the issue at hand :-) I will do my best to keep my facts in order in future - can you help me by telling me which of my facts was incorrect please? Thanks Lawrence Barton Spencer Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > Lawrence Edwards wrote: > > > > Barton > > > > FYI James Hunt only won the championship because a decision to

disqualify

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > him for having a slightly under-width car earlier in the season was > > overturned on appeal... > > And the relevance to what I said is...? My comment on Hunt concerned his > largely unsponsored year with Hesketh, not his fluke championship year > with McLaren -- a Championship that was morally Niki Lauda's. If you're > going to take the the time and bandwidth to excoriate me, at least get > the facts in order, OK? > > BB >

Lio From what I heard nobody complained, the oversize bodywork was discovered as part of the routine scrutineering. I gather that not everything on the car is measured every time it is checked so it is possible that it was missed on previous occassions. It would presumably be impossible to check everything as the rule book is so large. I personally don't buy into the conspiracy theories. I also believe and hope that the dq will be overturned. 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. Lawrence Liutger Franzen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > I am in the camp of many that believe Ron Dennis knew about this since > > Nurburgring (or before), and simply chose to wait for the most > > beneficial time for McLaren to snitch to the FIA about it. I'm not a > > I heard that the complaining team was Stewart not McLaren. or am I > wrong? > > Lio

Bruce F1 certainly has its problems, I don't think anybody would deny that. Surely all main sports are suffering from too much commercialisation etc? I also think that this season has been relatively good for F1, at least better than the last couple of years. I know there has been the usual politics but a lot of people think this adds to the sport. Judging by the length of this thread (which I am enjoying BTW) people still like to argue about every aspect of F1. Lawrence Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > (snip) > It's a _very_ unsatisfactory way to end the race and the season, but > I'd have no respect for F1 if they failed to DQ Ferrari. > (unsnip) > > I've had no respect for F1 for years, John, so a failure to disqualifywould

Quoted text (32 lines)

> mean little. > > John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:49:27 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >I beg your pardon, and please excuse my apoplectic fit, but it's about > time > > >that the FIA, and their cronies, *REMOVED* the negative bias that they > have > > >directed towards Ferrari over the past 30 years. > > > > I'd love to hear examples of that - if anything the FIA have bent over > > backwards to keep Ferrari happy. Remember the "Draconian penalties" > > for anyone caught infringing the rules? Oh, except Ferrari.... > > > > >As for your mistaken assertion regarding one member of Ferrari being a > > >mobile chicane in order to allow the other an easier run, I seem to > recall > > >the situation being reveresd, where Irvine assisted Schumacher in at > least > > >one race. I also recalll Coulthard attempting to try it this year as > well. > > > > Coulthard has been racing Hakkinen all year - no way would he be > > holding up a Ferrari while Mika got away as Mika would be getting away > > rom him as well. > > > > >You are overlooking the fact that Messrs Moseley and Ecclestone, Denis > and > > >Hakkinen cannot have their cake and eat it too. Formula Once

(deliberate

Quoted text (24 lines)

> > >spelling) is a team sport.....there must be two cars and the teams vie > for a > > >Manufacturers Championship each season. Therefore team tactics are > > >perfectly acceptable. > > > > I like the team tactics aspect, but it can be taken too far - cycle > > racing and rugby union a faw years back being examples of where team > > tactics designed to win detract from the reason the sport existed in > > the first place, to entertain. FWIW I don't subscribe to the Ron > > Dennis view that Sepang was too much - I thought Schumacher drove > > superbly and if DC can pass Mika should be able to also. In fact my > > wife, who normally hates F1, was enthralled by the whole race - EI > > worried by DC who has nothing to lose, MH similarly worried by MS. DC > > passes MS wildly, chasing EI to pressure him into an error, or lunge a > > pass (which EI must concede to) then slow EI to bring him into range > > of the MS/MH battle - ripping stuff :-) > > > > >My disappointment, Mr. Black, stems from the complete lack of > sportsmanship > > >that now epitomises F1. This latest example, where a protest is lodged > over > > >10mm of carbon fibre when the protesting team were soundly and > convincingly > > >beaten by the better team tactics on the day, is simply one occasion in

a

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > >whole string of them. > > > > That is not true - the illegality of the car was discovered by the > > stewards without neither the intervention nor protest from McLaren. > > > > >Ten millimetres of carbon fibre did not beat McLaren. > > >Ferrari could have removed the barge-boards and still Coulthard and > Hakkinen > > >would have still been up against it. > > > > Probably, but we don't know that. Illegal is illegal, that's why the > > rules exist. Suppose that an aero improvement brings big benefits, the > > more area the better - how much over the regulations are you allowed - > > 1mm? 5mm? 10mm? The answer is 0mm, that's why the rules exist. With a > > budget of $100m+ if Ferrari can't find an irregularity on a car they > > designed but which a steward spotted in a post-race check, they can > > hardly point the finger at anyone. > > > > It's a _very_ unsatisfactory way to end the race and the season, but > > I'd have no respect for F1 if they failed to DQ Ferrari. > > > > Cheers! > > John > > > > > -----------== 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==-----

And for those with an appetite for "he said, he said" Autosport 10/19/99: Bernie sez: <<Formula One ringmaster Bernie Ecclestone has criticised the FIA's decision to disqualify both Ferraris from Sunday's Malaysian Grand Prix. He described the action as 'nonsense' and has urged F1's governing body to change its mind. 'What happened in Malaysia is bad for the sport,' he said. 'I would like what the public want - to see a great finish in Japan�It is a shame if the world championship could be decided by someone quite junior who has made a mistake in the factory.' [editor's note: remember when it was "someone quite junior" who fiddled with Benetton's fuel rig and nearly immolated Verstappen and the pit crew? Just an historical note of interest.] Despite his influence in the Formula One paddock, Ecclestone will have no say in the appeal, which takes place in Paris on Friday. Ferrari drivers Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher were ousted from Sunday's race results when barge boards on both their cars were found to be 10mm too short.>> Ron Dennis sez: <<The McLaren team has urged a Formula One appeal hearing to uphold the FIA's decision to exclude Ferrari from the Malaysian Grand Prix. The Woking-based team has issued a statement insisting that Formula One rules must be upheld, even if they deny spectators the chance to see a dramatic world championship finale in Japan. 'Whilst we understand the sympathy and requests for leniency that some people have expressed, the fact that the outcome of the Malaysian Grand Prix can decide this year's World Championship is irrelevant,' it claims. 'The more important the outcome of a race, the more important it is that the rules are applied consistently and fairly in accordance with the procedures which have been strictly adhered to in the past.' An independent court of appeal will meet in Paris on Friday to decide whether to reinstate Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher in the Sepang results. McLaren has been invited to attend the hearing, and managing director Martin Whitmarsh will represent the outfit. It has also been given the option of making a presentation at the meeting. The appeal court's ruling will have a major effect on its 1999 season. If Ferrari loses its appeal, Mika Hakkinen will take this year's drivers' title, and McLaren will take the constructors' championship [120-102]. However, if the Italian marque is reinstated, it would lead McLaren 118-114 going to Suzuka in the constructors' standings, and Eddie Irvine would lead Mika Hakkinen by four points [70-66] in the drivers' 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".

Lawrence Edwards wrote: > > Barton > > Sorry - I didn't mean to excoriate you - that sounds painful by the way, I > suppose I should look it up in the dictionary to find out what it means.... Akin to debrading, I think... > I will do my best to keep my facts in order in future - can you help me by > telling me which of my facts was incorrect please? None of your facts were incorrect, they just weren't germane to the question at hand. More a solecism than canard, if you catch my meaning... BB

Lawrence Edwards wrote: > > Mikka has been quoted as saying that he would prefer for thechampionship to be decided on the track. A preference apparently not shared by Ron Dennis! BB

John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote: : On 18 Oct 1999 18:32:21 GMT, [email hidden] (Joao Silva) wrote: :>I disagree. :>Formula 1 without Ferrari would no longer be Formula 1. : For some - I could live without them, they're simply another team. : They were certainly an institution once, but that reputation has long : since faded. It is kept alive in the dreams of the Tifosi, but that is : all. Same for me. Any team with a budget exceeding 200 million USD who can't afford to hire a few quality control personnel and use them properly is strictly amateur. If you get a carbon fibre panel wrong by 10mm in the aerospace industry, you throw it in the bin. With all the design work done on computers now, there is no way a proposed part should slip past a "virtual" template at the design stage, nor past a quality check after production. Stephen

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Richard, pushing the rules to the nth. degree has always existed but >"cheating" really only became more frequent after the commercialisation of >the sport, I'm afraid. As the commercial interests became greater, so the >elevl of good sportsmanship dropped. > >So from around the beginning of the 1970s onwards F1 began to decompose in >that respect.

hehhe. This is utter tripe. Cheating existed and was prevalanet even before the commercial days of F1. IO suggest you re-read an article on last years Motor Sport...(looking for Vol no later....) You can romantacise all you like bruce, but stick to the facts in hand... Z. Please remove my_pants when replying.

In article <7ufp3l$e7q$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Joao Silva) wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>In article <7uemtn$dsn$[email hidden]>, >Zonkie <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >>That would be the temper tantrum that i would expect of Ferrari. In which >>case, F1 is better off without them. >> >>Z. >> >> >>Please remove my_pants when replying. > >I disagree. > >Formula 1 without Ferrari would no longer be Formula 1.

<snip> Utter pants. Ferrari is a souless corporate. F1 without ferrari would be F1 without Marlboro. Sure, they've been around a bit and they've got history, but all ferrari is in f1 is souless, pointless marketing. Z. Please remove my_pants when replying.

Steve Ferguson wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Same for me. Any team with a budget exceeding 200 million USD who can't > afford to hire a few quality control personnel and use them properly is > strictly amateur. If you get a carbon fibre panel wrong by 10mm in the > aerospace industry, you throw it in the bin. With all the design work > done on computers now, there is no way a proposed part should slip past a > "virtual" template at the design stage, nor past a quality check after > production.

Look to NASA for an organisation with a budget even larger than Ferrari where simple mistakes like a confusion between metric and imperial units can occur. Mistakes can be made no matter how much money you throw at quality control. Bendito;

In article <7uh5qj$o72$[email hidden]>, "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Well, obviously, it was that 10mm of board that allowed him to be sofast. > > -- > > Mark Jeangerard If you'd bother to read more about it, every team in F1 on record about the issue states it's NO ADVANTAGE. Are you ignorant? Or just uninformed? Hammer2k Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

There's a tendancy for people to assume yesterday was better. My grandparents do that a lot... "No crime, you could leave your doors open all day blah blah" however it's never the truth. Bruce is obviously paying too much attention to either books or his memory and not enough to the facts. M [email hidden] (Zonkie) wrote in <7uh91r$4q6$[email hidden]>:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>hehhe. This is utter tripe. Cheating existed and was prevalanet even before >the commercial days of F1. IO suggest you re-read an article on last years >Motor Sport...(looking for Vol no later....) > >You can romantacise all you like bruce, but stick to the facts in hand... > >Z.

That's very true, John.....we can all live without any of the teams that make up the current F1 circus, just as we can all live without other long-standing traditions and institutions throughout the world. What a forlorn place it would be. And what a terribly sad bunch would populate it. Toodles. BK John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > For some - I could live without them, they're simply another team. > They were certainly an institution once, but that reputation has long > since faded. It is kept alive in the dreams of the Tifosi, but that is > all. -----------== 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 ==-----

And not the first time in motor-racing history that something alluded to PRIOR to a race has only been "officially" discovered AFTER the event. Barton Spencer Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> [email hidden] wrote: > > > >...I also believe the FIA circus scrutinizers have an implicit obligation > to share with any team the results of FIA scrutinization of that teams > car. I find it reprehensible the FIA needed McLaren to point out the > problem for them :( (if indeed that is the case, which I believe it > is). > > Ross Brawn has been saying all along that the team cars, and > specifically the barge boards, were scrutineered throughout the weekend > at Malaysia, from Friday to Sunday. They're the same barge boards (or > turning vanes) on the same cars since the cars were set up for the > Luxembourg GP. Doesn't it seem a little odd, at the very least, that it > wasn't until post-race scrutineering that the FIA tech rep found a > "problem?" This is certainly not the first time such nonsense has taken > place, as those who remember ex-FIA scrutineer Roland Bruynseraede (of > Jabroc plank fame) will recollect. > > BB >

-----------== 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 ==-----

Dear Mr. Peteri, No, I'm not peering through Ferrari-red coloured glasses and no, I'm not an expert on aerodynamics. My original belief was that McLaren had protested....until I discovered that was not the case (McLaren were reported to be threatening to protest the tyres used by Ferrari at their last pit stop). I don't, however, agree with your point(s) regarding slow car/fast car. This is, after all, a race, and races are combinations of tactics and strategy. The only motor-racing these days that seems to rely on nothing but speed on the track is drag racing. Slowing down/speeding up is _NOT_ blocking: the following car and driver combination simply needs to have (a) the horses to accelerate past the car in front, (b) the brakes to dive under the car in front and (c) the intestinal fortitude to take advantage of (a) and (b). Cheerio. BK Antti Markus Peteri <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > [email hidden] says... > > > > As for your mistaken assertion regarding one member of Ferrari being a > > mobile chicane in order to allow the other an easier run, I seem torecall > > the situation being reveresd, where Irvine assisted Schumacher in atleast > > one race. I also recalll Coulthard attempting to try it this year aswell.

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > > > Salo assisted Irvine at Spa when he was asked by the team to hold back > Ralf Schumacher (that really made Williams and Head lose their cool) but > other than that, we haven't seen anyone employ these kind of tactics this > season, that is, before Malaysia. Unsurprisingly, it was once again > Ferrari. > > Schumacher admittedly drove a brilliant race, being able to control > Hakkinen by fluctuating his speed, lifting in high speed corners and > immediately accelerating away while MH couldn't afford to take a risk of > being put out of race with Irvine in lead. MS was certainly dominant in > Malaysia, while the team's strategy was... um, less sporty. Not illegal > though, like everyone knows. But Ferrari is hardly even a moral winner > here. > > > > > > My disappointment, Mr. Black, stems from the complete lack of

sportsmanship > > that now epitomises F1. This latest example, where a protest is lodgedover

Quoted text (37 lines)

> > 10mm of carbon fibre... > > > > No protest. The officials discovered a rule infringement. Don't blame Mc > for that. Unless you're one of conspiracy theorists wearing red shades. > I suppose we'll always have to suffer from some lack of sportsmanship > when big buckz are in the picture. Just remember that you're talking > about a quality which Ferrari itself is not very famous of. > > > > > > Ten millimetres of carbon fibre did not beat McLaren. > > > > I can see your frustration but are you REALLY such an expert in F1 > aerodynamics that you can tell what kind of effect those modified barge > boards actually had. For sure their shape was based on wind tunnel > testing and not some fractal landscape generator. > > From formula1.com: > > > Ferrari may have claimed that on this section of the car even a > discrepancy of 10mm on a deflector would have no performance enhancing > effect but according to Dr. Kevin Garry of the Cranfield Institute in the > UK, where many teams come to develop their aerodynamic packages at it's > College of Aeronautics, even the smallest of changes can have very > pronounced effects: > > "There can be huge aero effects from something as small as a 1 or 2 > millimetre discrepancy. Small changes can severely effect the separation > of air downstream of the part and it may well induce a spiralling of the > airflow known as vortex which can have profound implications for the > airflow over the bodywork behind the part in question". > > >

-----------== 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 ==-----

"Flavour Rigolletto" I think I referred to him in a little e-zine I once worked with!! :o) Matthew B. P. Knutsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > Richard, pushing the rules to the nth. degree has always existed but > > "cheating" really only became more frequent after the commercialisationof > > the sport, I'm afraid. As the commercial interests became greater, sothe > > elevl of good sportsmanship dropped. > > > > So from around the beginning of the 1970s onwards F1 began to decomposein > > that respect. > > Can you say "Flavio Briatore"? That about sums F1 up for me now. Yea, Iknow he's

Quoted text (16 lines)

> "out", but honestly...... > Yuk!!!!!!!!! > :-) > > Matt > > > -- > ---------------------- > The GPL Preservation Society > http://www.gpl.netti.nu > http://KOTR.de/gpl > > **GPLEA Member** > >

-----------== 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 ==-----

The reason behind the enormous width of the track is that it's Kuala Lumpur's second major airport for 360 days of the year. The 747s land on the two straights and the smaller aircraft use what's left. RoboCat <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c5UO3.3726$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> After seeing how amazing that track in malaysia looked i am really worried > about what Inndianapolis might look like for the 2000 gp > are they building a real track or are they going to set red cones all over > the infield like many tracks do for the GT cars and other Formula racers?I > would be very embarrased by anything other than a full course makeover for > the F1 Boys. > Please, Please, Please dont let the Indianapolis people opt > for the cheap route. > >

-----------== 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 ==-----

Sorta confirms this old blokes supposition....that contemporary F1 is not, by any stretch of the imagination, really "Formula One". The real thing died 20 years ago. The abomination that currently passes for it is simply a pale imitation. Zonkie <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7uh8u4$4q6$[email hidden]... > In article <7ufp3l$e7q$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Joao Silva)wrote: > >In article <7uemtn$dsn$[email hidden]>, > >Zonkie <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> > >>That would be the temper tantrum that i would expect of Ferrari. Inwhich

Quoted text (14 lines)

> >>case, F1 is better off without them. > >> > >>Z. > >> > >> > >>Please remove my_pants when replying. > > > >I disagree. > > > >Formula 1 without Ferrari would no longer be Formula 1. > > <snip> > > Utter pants. Ferrari is a souless corporate. F1 without ferrari would be

F1 > without Marlboro. Sure, they've been around a bit and they've got history,but > all ferrari is in f1 is souless, pointless marketing. > > Z. > > > Please remove my_pants when replying. -----------== 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 ==-----

By all means...please advise the issue number. Then please go back to my post and have a look at the way I referred to cheating "becoming _MORE FREQUENT_"....etc. I didn't say that's when it _STARTED_!!! Zonkie <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7uh91r$4q6$[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, "Bruce Kennewell"<[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Richard, pushing the rules to the nth. degree has always existed but > >"cheating" really only became more frequent after the commercialisationof > >the sport, I'm afraid. As the commercial interests became greater, sothe > >elevl of good sportsmanship dropped. > > > >So from around the beginning of the 1970s onwards F1 began to decomposein > >that respect. > > hehhe. This is utter tripe. Cheating existed and was prevalanet evenbefore

Quoted text (9 lines)

> the commercial days of F1. IO suggest you re-read an article on last years > Motor Sport...(looking for Vol no later....) > > You can romantacise all you like bruce, but stick to the facts in hand... > > Z. > > > Please remove my_pants when replying.

-----------== 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 ==-----

Damned right and certainly the definitive reason to ban NASA from any further space shots. Let Ecclestone organise an alternative. Marko Peric <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Steve Ferguson wrote: > > > > Same for me. Any team with a budget exceeding 200 million USD who can't > > afford to hire a few quality control personnel and use them properly is > > strictly amateur. If you get a carbon fibre panel wrong by 10mm in the > > aerospace industry, you throw it in the bin. With all the design work > > done on computers now, there is no way a proposed part should slip past

a

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > "virtual" template at the design stage, nor past a quality check after > > production. > > Look to NASA for an organisation with a budget even larger than > Ferrari where simple mistakes like a confusion between metric and > imperial units can occur. Mistakes can be made no matter how much money > you throw at quality control. > > Bendito;

-----------== 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 ==-----

HAHAHA! Let's see what _YOU_ romanticise about in another 20 - 30 years, Mr. Meiji!! "The best years of F1 were the [insert decade at the beginning of which you were really grabbed by F1].........." We all do it because it is invariably directly associated with our mid-teens through late twenties, early thirties....certainly before permanent partnerships/families are formed. They are always the times where our recollections are always "good". Every generation has done it and will do it and yours, my smug friend, will be _EXACTLY_ the same! And you know what is the best thing about this? Knowing that I'm 110% right!!! LOL! :o) BK Meiji <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > There's a tendancy for people to assume yesterday was better. Mygrandparents

Quoted text (12 lines)

> do that a lot... "No crime, you could leave your doors open all day blah > blah" however it's never the truth. > > Bruce is obviously paying too much attention to either books or his memory > and not enough to the facts. > > M > > [email hidden] (Zonkie) wrote in > <7uh91r$4q6$[email hidden]>: > > >hehhe. This is utter tripe. Cheating existed and was prevalanet even

before > >the commercial days of F1. IO suggest you re-read an article on lastyears > >Motor Sport...(looking for Vol no later....) > > > >You can romantacise all you like bruce, but stick to the facts in hand... > > > >Z. -----------== 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 ==-----

In article <7uh8u4$4q6$[email hidden]>, > Utter pants. Ferrari is a souless corporate. F1 without ferrari wouldbe F1 > without Marlboro. Sure, they've been around a bit and they've gothistory, but > all ferrari is in f1 is souless, pointless marketing. > > Z. Hey Z... tell us about your childhood... we can help you :) Hammer2k Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

RoboCat wrote: > >or are they going to set red cones all over the infield like manytracks do for the GT cars and other Formula racers? Boy, that would really piss off the golfers! I hope they do it for that reason alone! I thought I'd seen the proposed layout somewhere, but maybe that was just a hallucination based on a bad dream by Yogi Berra. IMS sure has enough real estate to cram a decent road course into the thing -- hope they do the right thing... Bart

Steve Ferguson wrote: >If anything, Hunt "morally" deserved a WC for being one of the > few "characters" in F1. > > Stephen Good point. As for moral victories (though the unhappy result was a byproduct of the zany points system in place at the time), how about Moss losing -- by 1 point -- to Hawthorn in '58? BB

In article <7uemtn$dsn$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Zonkie) wrote: > That would be the temper tantrum that i would expect of Ferrari. Inwhich > case, F1 is better off without them. > > Z. Now that is actually funny :) Thanks for the laugh. F1 better off without Ferrari... LMAO!... yer a genius... err.... Hammer Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Richard, pushing the rules to the nth. degree has always existed but "cheating" really only became more frequent after the commercialisation of the sport, I'm afraid. As the commercial interests became greater, so the elevl of good sportsmanship dropped. So from around the beginning of the 1970s onwards F1 began to decompose in that respect. Richard G Clegg <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7uf5af$52a$[email hidden]... > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote: > : My disappointment, Mr. Black, stems from the complete lack ofsportsmanship

Quoted text (33 lines)

> : that now epitomises F1. > > C'mon Bruce - I thought you _remembered_ the old days of F1. In the 70s > and 80s you could play "spot the cheat". Or how about playing "which > teams used the following cheats": > > Overly tall car and a nail covertly inserted into the tyre after the > race to get it under the scrutineers ruler. > > Underweight car and special "lead lined" engine cover put in place > for scrutineering. > > "Water cooled" brakes which happened to loose all that heavy water at > some point during the race (allowing the car to run underweight). > > Covert flip of a bit of paper across the electronic eye to shave a > few tenths off a qualifying time. > > I'm sure that when you think back you can come up with your own. > > Formula One has _always_ had its politics and its dodgy dealings - > it's just that we think of the older ones as "the whacky exploits > they used to get away with" and the newer ones as "that scandal which > would never have happened in the old days. > > I don't know enough about the 60s to comment but do you really believe > that the 70s and 80s were more sporting? > > -- > 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

-----------== 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 ==-----

Very true.....I'd missed that point! Barton Spencer Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > I tried to check it out from Oz with my little short-wave radio but the > > atmospherics were playing up and the best I could get was Radio Caracas.I > > believe it's just as good. > > Better, since it comes from a civilized country with an understandablelanguage... > > ;^) > > BB > -----------== 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 ==-----

(snip) It's a _very_ unsatisfactory way to end the race and the season, but I'd have no respect for F1 if they failed to DQ Ferrari. (unsnip) I've had no respect for F1 for years, John, so a failure to disqualify would mean little. John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:49:27 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >I beg your pardon, and please excuse my apoplectic fit, but it's abouttime > >that the FIA, and their cronies, *REMOVED* the negative bias that theyhave

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >directed towards Ferrari over the past 30 years. > > I'd love to hear examples of that - if anything the FIA have bent over > backwards to keep Ferrari happy. Remember the "Draconian penalties" > for anyone caught infringing the rules? Oh, except Ferrari.... > > >As for your mistaken assertion regarding one member of Ferrari being a > >mobile chicane in order to allow the other an easier run, I seem to

recall > >the situation being reveresd, where Irvine assisted Schumacher in atleast > >one race. I also recalll Coulthard attempting to try it this year aswell. > > Coulthard has been racing Hakkinen all year - no way would he be > holding up a Ferrari while Mika got away as Mika would be getting away > rom him as well. > > >You are overlooking the fact that Messrs Moseley and Ecclestone, Denisand > >Hakkinen cannot have their cake and eat it too. Formula Once (deliberate > >spelling) is a team sport.....there must be two cars and the teams viefor a

Quoted text (16 lines)

> >Manufacturers Championship each season. Therefore team tactics are > >perfectly acceptable. > > I like the team tactics aspect, but it can be taken too far - cycle > racing and rugby union a faw years back being examples of where team > tactics designed to win detract from the reason the sport existed in > the first place, to entertain. FWIW I don't subscribe to the Ron > Dennis view that Sepang was too much - I thought Schumacher drove > superbly and if DC can pass Mika should be able to also. In fact my > wife, who normally hates F1, was enthralled by the whole race - EI > worried by DC who has nothing to lose, MH similarly worried by MS. DC > passes MS wildly, chasing EI to pressure him into an error, or lunge a > pass (which EI must concede to) then slow EI to bring him into range > of the MS/MH battle - ripping stuff :-) > > >My disappointment, Mr. Black, stems from the complete lack of

sportsmanship > >that now epitomises F1. This latest example, where a protest is lodgedover > >10mm of carbon fibre when the protesting team were soundly andconvincingly

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >beaten by the better team tactics on the day, is simply one occasion in a > >whole string of them. > > That is not true - the illegality of the car was discovered by the > stewards without neither the intervention nor protest from McLaren. > > >Ten millimetres of carbon fibre did not beat McLaren. > >Ferrari could have removed the barge-boards and still Coulthard and

Hakkinen

Quoted text (15 lines)

> >would have still been up against it. > > Probably, but we don't know that. Illegal is illegal, that's why the > rules exist. Suppose that an aero improvement brings big benefits, the > more area the better - how much over the regulations are you allowed - > 1mm? 5mm? 10mm? The answer is 0mm, that's why the rules exist. With a > budget of $100m+ if Ferrari can't find an irregularity on a car they > designed but which a steward spotted in a post-race check, they can > hardly point the finger at anyone. > > It's a _very_ unsatisfactory way to end the race and the season, but > I'd have no respect for F1 if they failed to DQ Ferrari. > > Cheers! > John

-----------== 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 ==-----

Thanks for the correction, Goy. I was unaware of that fact (the routine inspection) although we had been made aware of the likelihood of McLaren protesting the used tyres. Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > My disappointment, Mr. Black, stems from the complete lack ofsportsmanship > > that now epitomises F1. This latest example, where a protest is lodgedover > > 10mm of carbon fibre when the protesting team were soundly andconvincingly > > beaten by the better team tactics on the day, is simply one occasion ina > > whole string of them. Ten millimetres of carbon fibre did not beatMcLaren. > > Ferrari could have removed the barge-boards and still Coulthard andHakkinen

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > would have still been up against it. > > Just for the record Bruce, according to Autosport, the "illegal" > bargeboards was discovered in a routine post race inspection and not > because of a protest lodged by any other team, although McLaren was > thinking about protesting the tyre wear on the Ferrari's, apparently > they had worn below the required minimum thread height, nice to have all > these rules that are so easy to police ....... > > -- > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ > "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/

-----------== 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 ==-----

I don't look for _anything_ in contemporary F1, Richard. The whole box and dice is a fiasco. My motor-racing _excitement_now comes from attending historic racing meetings. Richard G Clegg <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7uf8pr$52a$[email hidden]... > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote: > : Richard G Clegg <[email hidden]> wrote in message > :> > :> Luxembourg GP this year. > > : Jesus! Well, if *that* made your heart beat fast, Richard, get on downto

Quoted text (13 lines)

> : your doctor and have a check-up *really* quickly!! > > (Grin) Well, what do _you_ look for in a race Bruce? That had passing > for the lead and for major positions, crashing out of the lead, weather > effects and mechanical failure. What are _you_ looking for in a race? > 70% drop out through mechanical failure and the winner 2 minutes ahead > like in the 60s? > > -- > 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

-----------== 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 ==-----

I was waiting for the bloke at the back to open the boot and get the spare out!! Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > My fav in that race was when the Ferrari mechanics failed to show up > with EI's right rear wheel, that was hillarious > > -- > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ > "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/

-----------== 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 ==-----

Oh, sorry........I should have said that I don't!! But it's difficult to prevent the networks giving information in the sports section of the news. Once again....I do apologise. Lawrence Edwards <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7ufod1$4cb$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Don't watch it then. > > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Formula One........a time when a privateer could compete on equal terms > with > > the manufacturers. A time when laughter was more common in pit lane

than

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > grumbles. A time when a team in trouble and requiring a part would have > it > > loaned by a rival. A time when the drivers socialised before and after > the > > races. A time when losing a race was done so graciously. A time when > > winning was done with equal grace > > . > > Formula One.......a time when it was a sport in the purest sense of the > > word. > > > > > > Barton Spencer Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > > > > > I hate to say this, I really do, but if the disqualification is

upheld > > > > following the Ferrari appeal, I hope that they withdraw from F1. > > > > This is not an opinion that I arrive at lightly....not afterfollowing > > > > Grands Prix for almost as long as Murray Walker. But by turningtheir

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > backs > > > > on F1 Ferrari, in my opinion, could have the greatest effect on the > > "sport" > > > > since that egotistical meglomaniac took control. > > > > > > > > Just the opinion of a once-dedicated F1 fan. > > > > > > Bruce-- > > > > > > I couldn't agree more. This "Championship" has been engineered from

the > > > beginning of the season by that ageing Machiavelli-in-Guccis and his > > > tousle-haired Son-Of-Oswald crony. If Enzo were alive today,Ecclestone > > > would be soaking his Armani slacks at this moment -- no, let me take > > > that back: if Enzo were alive today, this shit wouldn't happen,because > > > he WOULD pull the team, and FIAT would back him all the way. 20 years > > > between Championships is -- correct me if I'm wrong -- a record for > > > Ferrari, and there's no doubt whatsoever that under Ecclestone's > > > self-imposed reign (since he finally ousted that doddering fossil > > > Jean-Marie Balestre), British teams have enjoyed a singularlybenevolent > > > shake from FIA, FISA, FOCA, FOA, and every other increasinglygrotesque > > > manifestation of "Bernie Ecclestone LLC." And I hope this finallyspurs

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > > the EU to put some teeth in their investigations. This is a black day > > > for F1 fans. If this isn't overturned, I hope the twin megalomaniacs > > > Tony George and Bernard Ecclestone meet for the 2000 USGP and are torn > > > apart by the mob of 150 or so that will turn up. > > > > > > That's it for F1 -- GPL is more than a memory of great cars, drivers, > > > and tracks -- it's also a reminder that there once was a sport called > > > Formula One...long since departed, alas. > > > > > > BB > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----------== 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 > ==----- > > -----------== 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 ==-----

In article <[email hidden]>, John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>On 18 Oct 1999 18:32:21 GMT, [email hidden] (Joao Silva) wrote: >>In the end it's the fans who lose and they've turned Suzuka into a race that >>is meaningless. > >"They" presumably being Ferrari? The FIA officials did their job, >nothing more nor less. > >Cheers! >John

Yes definitely Ferrari, but I do also partly blame the FIA for lack of inspection in the previous races or even qualifying and practice sessions. I think that the cars could be scrutinized much more closely by the FIA. Close and frequent inspection of the cars, perhaps right on the morning before the race followed by Parque Ferme would really encourage all the teams not to even try any shady modifications and prevent future situations where an illegal car can enter the race and even win it only to have the entire results be disallowed after the fans went home and celebrated the results. It would be much better to have the infraction discovered and their qualifying time be disallowed. I agree that the rules must be upheld but the way they are being enforced after the race allows for these type of snafus and disappointments for the fans. But like you say, this would not have happened if Ferrari had done the right thing (whether that be not cheating or in just case this was an oversight they should have verified that parts on the cars are manufactured according to the rules.) And yes, I am a very disappointed Tifosi, both that Ferrari would try to cheat, or if they did not that they allowed a manufacturing oversight to ruin a possible championship, in both cases it is utter stupidity on their part. Seeyas on the track. --John (Joao) Silva GPL Ferrari driver. Powerslide Racing Team - GMSS League F1 division. Rossi Razzi Racing Team - IGPLC League F2 division.

Barton Spencer Brown <[email hidden]> wrote: : And the relevance to what I said is...? My comment on Hunt concerned his : largely unsponsored year with Hesketh, not his fluke championship year : with McLaren -- a Championship that was morally Niki Lauda's. If you're If those are the requirements for a fluke championship, then there are others that fit the bill. Throw Rosberg's '82 championship up there as well, perhaps. Unfortunately Lauda crashed, either through his error or a car failure (I don't know, I was too young) and it cost him several races. A simple fact. Then he fought back courageously, which is also a fact. that he did not attain the WC that year diminishes his efforts and heroism in no way for me, nor does it diminish JH's achievement in getting the WC that year. I wouldn't bring the concept of "morals" into discussion of a WC. hunt sealed the championship because he was wither braver, or more foolhardy, to continue in the appalling conditions of Fuji. Both are qualities I somehow admired in a driver. Villeneuve (Sr. or Jr.) also fit the bill. If anything, Hunt "morally" deserved a WC for being one of the few "characters" in F1. Stephen

Bruce Kennewell wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Richard, pushing the rules to the nth. degree has always existed but > "cheating" really only became more frequent after the commercialisation of > the sport, I'm afraid. As the commercial interests became greater, so the > elevl of good sportsmanship dropped. > > So from around the beginning of the 1970s onwards F1 began to decompose in > that respect.

Can you say "Flavio Briatore"? That about sums F1 up for me now. Yea, I know he's "out", but honestly...... Yuk!!!!!!!!! :-) Matt -- ---------------------- The GPL Preservation Society http://www.gpl.netti.nu http://KOTR.de/gpl **GPLEA Member**

After seeing how amazing that track in malaysia looked i am really worried about what Inndianapolis might look like for the 2000 gp are they building a real track or are they going to set red cones all over the infield like many tracks do for the GT cars and other Formula racers?I would be very embarrased by anything other than a full course makeover for the F1 Boys. Please, Please, Please dont let the Indianapolis people opt for the cheap route.

> I am in the camp of many that believe Ron Dennis knew about this since > Nurburgring (or before), and simply chose to wait for the most > beneficial time for McLaren to snitch to the FIA about it. I'm not a I heard that the complaining team was Stewart not McLaren. or am I wrong? Lio

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7ug3rk$4qe$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Interesting weekend to be sure :( Schumacher was brilliant beyond > words... how people continue to disrespect this guy is beyond me. He's > obnoxious and arrogant to be sure... to the extreme... but he is > obviously THE BEST pilot on the planet right now. How he covers the > McLarens by nearly 1 full second in qualifying is beyond me... Mika and > David must feel like morons, driving the best car on the planet but a > full second adrift of the master. How long has it been since a non- > winner of a race so completely dominated the entire race in every way? > > Hammer

Well, obviously, it was that 10mm of board that allowed him to be so fast. -- Mark Jeangerard www.soundchaserweb.com New Mexico USA

That is a really good point! Now that I think about it, that would have been a major factor in my watching F1. My heart really did beat fast watching them race ON TV! Not to mention track side. Those guys were at it. 100%. I guess that's also the factor in my failure to follow F1. The heart rate dropped. Nothing there for me. -- Mark Jeangerard www.soundchaserweb.com New Mexico USA Ed Bain <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Here's a question for the F1 fans out there. When was the > last time that watching an F1 race made your heart beat > REALLY fast? > > It has been 8 or 10 years since I saw an F1 race that > did that for me.. I would have to say that it was the year > that Senna and Prost were locked in the championship > and Senna put him off in Japan. > > Quite a while ago.. > > -- > * rrevved at mindspring dot com > * unit.26 s.p.u.t.u.m. > * http://www.cabal.net > * http://www.sputum.com

Very true, Irvine isn't all that good.

Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote: : Richard, pushing the rules to the nth. degree has always existed but : "cheating" really only became more frequent after the commercialisation of : the sport, I'm afraid. As the commercial interests became greater, so the : elevl of good sportsmanship dropped. Do you have _any_ evidence for this whatsoever? : So from around the beginning of the 1970s onwards F1 began to decompose in : that respect. The most blatant examples of cheating I can think of were from the 70s when the sport was much less commercial. I suspect you're suffering a chronic case of "golden age syndrome" - the tendancy to say "Oh it was much better in the past" without actually remembering much of what went on in the past in detail. -- 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

Bruce Kennewell wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> HAHAHA! > Let's see what _YOU_ romanticise about in another 20 - 30 years, Mr. Meiji!! > "The best years of F1 were the [insert decade at the beginning of which you > were really grabbed by F1].........." > > We all do it because it is invariably directly associated with our mid-teens > through late twenties, early thirties....certainly before permanent > partnerships/families are formed. They are always the times where our > recollections are always "good". > > Every generation has done it and will do it and yours, my smug friend, will > be _EXACTLY_ the same! > > And you know what is the best thing about this? Knowing that I'm 110% > right!!! LOL! :o)

Make that 109% Bruce :-) I think it was far better in the early 70s, and I was kinda small those days being born in '73... However, I did attend a number of GPs in 74,75 and 76 :-) Matt -- ---------------------- The GPL Preservation Society http://www.gpl.netti.nu http://KOTR.de/gpl **GPLEA Member**

[email hidden] says...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > No, I'm not peering through Ferrari-red coloured glasses and no, I'm not an > expert on aerodynamics. My original belief was that McLaren had > protested....until I discovered that was not the case (McLaren were reported > to be threatening to protest the tyres used by Ferrari at their last pit > stop). >

And I apologize, I didn't plow through the entire thread before replying. > I don't, however, agree with your point(s) regarding slow car/fast car. > This is, after all, a race, and races are combinations of tactics and > strategy. The only motor-racing these days that seems to rely on nothing > but speed on the track is drag racing. > That is true, and more often than not it's the differences in the race strategies and how the strategies themselves are executed which make F1 racing interesting. I guess we simply have different views on what is sportsmanlike and what is not. Call me a fool, but I am inclined to believe in Dennis' word when he says McLaren would not employ tactics which are strongly based on *intentionally* slowing down their rivals. Looking at the lap times, MS mysteriously drove 2s/lap slower when EI was in the lead and MH was behind him, still he could accelerate away before his own pitstop. And yes, I do think that blocking is quite possible and even effortless in modern day F1, throughout the 90's we've witnessed how the race leaders sometimes have difficulty even lapping the backmarkers when the slowest ones fail to utilize their mirrors, on occasion they've managed to hold up much more powerful cars for what has seemed like an eternity. Of course it helped that MH was so reluctant to take the risk. Maybe that was wise, he did know, sitting in that car, how difficult overtaking MS would be, how MS had not as much to lose and how he'd still have the championship in his own hands if he just finished 3rd (by winning at Suzuka he can take the DWC). DC, otoh, took the risk, with less to lose, and even the officials commented that his move was reckless. All that said, MS was truly dominant in Malaysia, MH couldn't keep up with the pace when Schuey really put the pedal to the metal. It's unclear whether MH could've caught even EI if MS would've driven at the pace he was clearly able to. But to me, blocking it was nevertheless, and while I'm not happy to see these kind of tactics employed, if someone does, I'd rather see everyone do it. Maybe they'll learn, when Maranello is giving them a lesson. It's their loss if they don't, but it's our loss if they do. --- Antti Markus Peteri 15 miles. your dim light shines from so far away - Soul Asylum, Promises Broken

Zonkie wrote: > > Utter pants. Ferrari is a souless corporate. F1 without ferrari would be F1 > without Marlboro. Sure, they've been around a bit and they've got history, but > all ferrari is in f1 is souless, pointless marketing. F1 without Ferrari would be like F1 without Lotus........... -- Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/

Don't know if I am just being paranoid but I've felt that for the last couple of championships, things have been contrived, with a little help from the FIA, so that the Drivers Championship is in the balance right up until the last race? Somehow I don't see this year being any different and I fully expect Ferrari (and Irvine) to still be in the hunt in Japan. -- Peter Ives

Your right! There'd be no more dirty tactics and slow driving for blocking effect! I think cutting down the number of cars per team to 1 would fix up most of the BS with F1. Oh, and bring back slipstreaming effects. Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in article <[email hidden]>... > I hate to say this, I really do, but if the disqualification is upheld > following the Ferrari appeal, I hope that they withdraw from F1. > This is not an opinion that I arrive at lightly....not after following > Grands Prix for almost as long as Murray Walker. But by turning theirbacks > on F1 Ferrari, in my opinion, could have the greatest effect on the"sport" > since that egotistical meglomaniac took control. > > Just the opinion of a once-dedicated F1 fan. > >

It would have been found if Ferrari had scored points!. Checks on non-scoring cars are RANDOM, not mandatory. Mark Seery <[email hidden]> wrote in article <7ufuec$101n$[email hidden]>... > Well maybe the FIA should be thinking about getting their own house inorder > before standing in judgement. If the Stewards had done their jobcorrectly > at the two previous races, this "cheat" bargeboard would have been > discovered at a meeting where buggerall points were scored by Erve. > > I'm damned sure that Brawn would have had things sorted for this racewhere > it really mattered. >

The design specs of the cars prevents this style of racing. There used to be such a thing as a slipstream. Its now called DIRTY AIR and racers stay out of it. That basically leaves corners as the only overtaking places (via outbraking maneuvres) which are riskier as you are totally committed resulting in many take-offs. Christian Giroux <[email hidden]> wrote in article > In my opinion we have here a very good question and one good (if not > completed) statement, i'll try to explain my views on both. > > France's GP in '81 (i think) where G. Villeneuve and R. Arnoux had their > epic battles for a few laps, would sum it up for me (also not forgetting > G.V. practice lap at the Glen under rain where he got a 27 secondslead!). > Zandvoort where G.V. passed a Williams on the outside at Tarzan, etc,etc... > > My point is that since that era, i haven't seen as good a pilot as hewas. > Since then Senna, Prost, or Schumacher might be very good in their own > terms, but they all had the same things going on with them, they put out > their opponents of the tracks at on point or another. > > You think we would be able to see a battle between Schumacher andHakkinen > like Arnoux & Villeneuve? I don't think so, remember Schumi and JacquesV. > in the last race of '97 or Senna and Prost in Japan.... > > Oh and one more thing, the F.I.A. is like the Pisa tower.... It alwaysbend

Quoted text (8 lines)

> on the Italian side IMO.... > > My $ 0.02.... > > C. Giroux. > > >

Exactly right. This is the perfect scenario. A news beat-up about DQ, reverse decision, and have even greater audience for the last race. Bernies Digital TV will be pleased! Peter Ives <[email hidden]> wrote in article <[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Don't know if I am just being paranoid but I've felt that for the last > couple of championships, things have been contrived, with a little help > from the FIA, so that the Drivers Championship is in the balance right > up until the last race? Somehow I don't see this year being any > different and I fully expect Ferrari (and Irvine) to still be in the > hunt in Japan. > -- > Peter Ives >

Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote: : Richard....please read what I wrote, would you? 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

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote: > LOL!!! > Beautiful, Markus!!! Hook, line, sinker, rod AND boat!!! :o) Guilty as charged. I'm the village idiot today I guess. I kind of fail to see the humor, but oh well... Hammer Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > Exfolliants? Canards? Soltices? Germans? > Just what in Heavens name is going on at your house, Bart???!!!!! It all started innocently enough with a backyard sauna... BB

I don't romaticise about anything thus far in my life. All looking back does is make me feel older than I feel normally and I'm reasonable enough to remember the bad parts of the past as well as the good parts. That members of a generation do this isn't under dispute, whether or not I will is a different matter. My father is very much realist about the past and I don't see me changing so much that I become different to the way I am now. So to summarise Mr Kennewell (I'm trying to be as patronising as you here, does it work?): Just because you're incapable of looking back with any kind of realism don't assume the rest of us are the same. Regards M [email hidden] (Bruce Kennewell) wrote in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted text (17 lines)

>HAHAHA! >Let's see what _YOU_ romanticise about in another 20 - 30 years, Mr. >Meiji!! "The best years of F1 were the [insert decade at the beginning >of which you were really grabbed by F1].........." > >We all do it because it is invariably directly associated with our mid >-teens through late twenties, early thirties....certainly before >permanent partnerships/families are formed. They are always the times >where our recollections are always "good". > >Every generation has done it and will do it and yours, my smug friend, >will be _EXACTLY_ the same! > >And you know what is the best thing about this? Knowing that I'm 110% >right!!! LOL! :o) > >BK

A statistic (of limited interest, I would imagine): Of the (what is it....eleven? Twelve?) teams running in Grands Prix in 1999, only one of them was entering events when Formula One commenced....over 40 years ago. Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Zonkie wrote: > > > > Utter pants. Ferrari is a souless corporate. F1 without ferrari would beF1 > > without Marlboro. Sure, they've been around a bit and they've gothistory, but

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > all ferrari is in f1 is souless, pointless marketing. > > F1 without Ferrari would be like F1 without Lotus........... > > -- > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ > "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/

-----------== 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 ==-----

Now let's be fair and honest, Mr. Z. ALL.....repeat, ALL the teams that are entered in F1 today are either soulless corporations in their own right or are backed by same. BK Zonkie <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7ui4uf$24$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > Lotus & Ferrari are nothing but souless corporates both > > without Mr C & mr E. > > Z. > > > Please remove my_pants when replying.

-----------== 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 ==-----

Meiji wrote: > So to summarise Mr Kennewell (I'm trying to be as patronising as you > here, does it work?): Just because you're incapable of looking back with > any kind of realism don't assume the rest of us are the same. > It's really amazing and heartening to know that there are so many exceptions to human nature here on RAS -- far more than you ever see in real life! -- Bob Curtin Worcester Area Strategy & Tactics Exchange http://www.tiac.net/users/ten10ths/ "If God had intended men to join the Army he would have given us green, baggy skin"

Exfolliants? Canards? Soltices? Germans? Just what in Heavens name is going on at your house, Bart???!!!!! Barton Spencer Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Lawrence Edwards wrote: > > > > Barton > > > > Sorry - I didn't mean to excoriate you - that sounds painful by the way,I > > suppose I should look it up in the dictionary to find out what itmeans.... > > Akin to debrading, I think... > > > > I will do my best to keep my facts in order in future - can you help meby

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > telling me which of my facts was incorrect please? > > None of your facts were incorrect, they just weren't germane to the > question at hand. More a solecism than canard, if you catch my meaning... > > BB >

-----------== 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 ==-----

LOL!!! Beautiful, Markus!!! Hook, line, sinker, rod AND boat!!! :o) <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7uioci$v9n$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> In article <7uh5qj$o72$[email hidden]>, > "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > Well, obviously, it was that 10mm of board that allowed him to be so > fast. > > > > -- > > > > Mark Jeangerard > > If you'd bother to read more about it, every team in F1 on record about > the issue states it's NO ADVANTAGE. > > Are you ignorant? Or just uninformed? > > Hammer2k > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.

-----------== 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 ==-----

Oh, F1 certainly stirs the passions of any current or previous devotee, Lawrence, for sure. But I just cannot treat it with anything other than disdain now, I'm sad to say. It has become little more than contrived, commercialised, television-specific pap without soul or character. BK Lawrence Edwards <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7uiajk$7qa$[email hidden]... > Bruce > > F1 certainly has its problems, I don't think anybody would deny that.Surely > all main sports are suffering from too much commercialisation etc? I also > think that this season has been relatively good for F1, at least betterthan > the last couple of years. I know there has been the usual politics but alot > of people think this adds to the sport. Judging by the length of thisthread

Quoted text (23 lines)

> (which I am enjoying BTW) people still like to argue about every aspect of > F1. > > Lawrence > > > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > (snip) > > It's a _very_ unsatisfactory way to end the race and the season, but > > I'd have no respect for F1 if they failed to DQ Ferrari. > > (unsnip) > > > > I've had no respect for F1 for years, John, so a failure to disqualify > would > > mean little. > > > > John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:49:27 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" > > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > >I beg your pardon, and please excuse my apoplectic fit, but it's

about > > time > > > >that the FIA, and their cronies, *REMOVED* the negative bias thatthey

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > have > > > >directed towards Ferrari over the past 30 years. > > > > > > I'd love to hear examples of that - if anything the FIA have bent over > > > backwards to keep Ferrari happy. Remember the "Draconian penalties" > > > for anyone caught infringing the rules? Oh, except Ferrari.... > > > > > > >As for your mistaken assertion regarding one member of Ferrari being

a

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > >mobile chicane in order to allow the other an easier run, I seem to > > recall > > > >the situation being reveresd, where Irvine assisted Schumacher in at > > least > > > >one race. I also recalll Coulthard attempting to try it this year as > > well. > > > > > > Coulthard has been racing Hakkinen all year - no way would he be > > > holding up a Ferrari while Mika got away as Mika would be getting away > > > rom him as well. > > > > > > >You are overlooking the fact that Messrs Moseley and Ecclestone,

Denis > > and > > > >Hakkinen cannot have their cake and eat it too. Formula Once > (deliberate > > > >spelling) is a team sport.....there must be two cars and the teamsvie

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > for a > > > >Manufacturers Championship each season. Therefore team tactics are > > > >perfectly acceptable. > > > > > > I like the team tactics aspect, but it can be taken too far - cycle > > > racing and rugby union a faw years back being examples of where team > > > tactics designed to win detract from the reason the sport existed in > > > the first place, to entertain. FWIW I don't subscribe to the Ron > > > Dennis view that Sepang was too much - I thought Schumacher drove > > > superbly and if DC can pass Mika should be able to also. In fact my > > > wife, who normally hates F1, was enthralled by the whole race - EI > > > worried by DC who has nothing to lose, MH similarly worried by MS. DC > > > passes MS wildly, chasing EI to pressure him into an error, or lunge a > > > pass (which EI must concede to) then slow EI to bring him into range > > > of the MS/MH battle - ripping stuff :-) > > > > > > >My disappointment, Mr. Black, stems from the complete lack of > > sportsmanship > > > >that now epitomises F1. This latest example, where a protest is

lodged > > over > > > >10mm of carbon fibre when the protesting team were soundly and > > convincingly > > > >beaten by the better team tactics on the day, is simply one occasionin

Quoted text (31 lines)

> a > > > >whole string of them. > > > > > > That is not true - the illegality of the car was discovered by the > > > stewards without neither the intervention nor protest from McLaren. > > > > > > >Ten millimetres of carbon fibre did not beat McLaren. > > > >Ferrari could have removed the barge-boards and still Coulthard and > > Hakkinen > > > >would have still been up against it. > > > > > > Probably, but we don't know that. Illegal is illegal, that's why the > > > rules exist. Suppose that an aero improvement brings big benefits, the > > > more area the better - how much over the regulations are you allowed - > > > 1mm? 5mm? 10mm? The answer is 0mm, that's why the rules exist. With a > > > budget of $100m+ if Ferrari can't find an irregularity on a car they > > > designed but which a steward spotted in a post-race check, they can > > > hardly point the finger at anyone. > > > > > > It's a _very_ unsatisfactory way to end the race and the season, but > > > I'd have no respect for F1 if they failed to DQ Ferrari. > > > > > > Cheers! > > > John > > > > > > > > > > -----------== 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 > ==----- > > -----------== 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 ==-----

Yeah.....you're probably not wrong there, John. John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > I think the sad bunch are the current populace, for allowing sports to > become that which they are now. I loved F1 in the 70's, thought it > looked better in the 60's, but the 80's was the pinnacle - it also > marked the watershed, delineating what it was to what it has become. -----------== 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 ==-----

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Now let's be fair and honest, Mr. Z. >ALL.....repeat, ALL the teams that are entered in F1 today are either >soulless corporations in their own right or are backed by same. > >BK I've never implied otherwise. Some insist on romantising Fiat and (who own's Lotus these days?) as some kind of romantic notion.... Not me. Z. Please remove my_pants when replying.

In article <7uk2h8$136$[email hidden]>, "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Unless that barge board was what did it. Yep, talked myself out ofagreeing > with you... that board was responsible for every bit of techniquethat we > saw ooze from the Shoe's car. He was just a passenger. > > :-) > > -- > Mark Jeangerard Oops... I was a little quick on the trigger there :) Sorry. Cheers. Hammer2k Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Richard....please read what I wrote, would you? I said when cheating became more freqent....NOT when it started. Richard G Clegg <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7uhu18$oli$[email hidden]... > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote: > : Richard, pushing the rules to the nth. degree has always existed but > : "cheating" really only became more frequent after the commercialisationof > : the sport, I'm afraid. As the commercial interests became greater, sothe > : elevl of good sportsmanship dropped. > > Do you have _any_ evidence for this whatsoever? > > : So from around the beginning of the 1970s onwards F1 began to decomposein

Quoted text (13 lines)

> : that respect. > > The most blatant examples of cheating I can think of were from the 70s > when the sport was much less commercial. I suspect you're suffering > a chronic case of "golden age syndrome" - the tendancy to say "Oh it > was much better in the past" without actually remembering much of what > went on in the past in detail. > > -- > 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

-----------== 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 ==-----

G'day Matthew. There you go then.....you've got your "best time". But it's not as good as the 1960s :o) BK Matthew B. P. Knutsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > HAHAHA! > > Let's see what _YOU_ romanticise about in another 20 - 30 years, Mr.Meiji!! > > "The best years of F1 were the [insert decade at the beginning of whichyou > > were really grabbed by F1].........." > > > > We all do it because it is invariably directly associated with ourmid-teens > > through late twenties, early thirties....certainly before permanent > > partnerships/families are formed. They are always the times where our > > recollections are always "good". > > > > Every generation has done it and will do it and yours, my smug friend,will

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > be _EXACTLY_ the same! > > > > And you know what is the best thing about this? Knowing that I'm 110% > > right!!! LOL! :o) > > Make that 109% Bruce :-) > I think it was far better in the early 70s, and I was kinda small those

days being

Quoted text (14 lines)

> born in '73... > However, I did attend a number of GPs in 74,75 and 76 :-) > > Matt > > -- > ---------------------- > The GPL Preservation Society > http://www.gpl.netti.nu > http://KOTR.de/gpl > > **GPLEA Member** > >

-----------== 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 ==-----

In article <7uh8u4$4q6$[email hidden]>, Zonkie <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Utter pants. Ferrari is a souless corporate. F1 without ferrari would be F1 >without Marlboro. Sure, they've been around a bit and they've got history, but >all ferrari is in f1 is souless, pointless marketing. > >Z. > > >Please remove my_pants when replying.

And what professional sport team nowadays isn't? Welcome to the disenchanted souless corporate world of Blade Runner <G> Call me simple if you will, but I still get excited when I see the red lights ready to go out on the grid, or when Michael Schumacher puts in a qualifying lap like he did Saturday at Sepang or seeing Ralf Schumacher wrestle his car in the rain at Nurburgring or many other great moments in "modern" F1. While I admit F1 is much more soul-less than it was a in the "good ole days", I still quite enjoy it apart from screw-ups like what happened this weekend. I think even if you had this discussion in the 70's or even 60's there probably would have been some people at that time who would have said "those" days compared sadly to the great days of F1 in the 50's <G>. Of course here in the States I'm just glad to be able to *see* F1 coverage these days, I spent a good few years while in college unable to afford cable TV and so my only F1 coverage came from USENET rec.autos.sports and FIDONET F1 discussion group. This probably makes me more happy with what we have today than most. And yes I do also wish Lotus was part of F1, soul-less corporate organization or not. Seeyas on the track. --John (Joao) Silva GPL Ferrari driver. Powerslide Racing Team - GMSS League F1 division. Rossi Razzi Racing Team - IGPLC League F2 division.

Wolfgang Preiss <[email hidden]> wrote: : Do not, I repeat, do NOT believe info provided by RTL television. ;) Just once... once... I wish they would pull someone out of the audience who knew how to drive F1RS. It's painful to watch some moron in a Dekra baseball cap sawing away at the wheel. Last night's audience offering was some myopic accountant who drove the first half of Suzuka in first gear, then spun off into the gravel when the commentators suggested that the car had 6 forward gears. For those who don't know, RTL (German network) has a show called Warm-Up where they get some experts (cough cough) together to discuss the upcoming or preceding race, and one thing they do is show a virtual lap of the race using a HyperSimulator and F1RS (or maybe MGPRS). Marc Surer at least has managed to get the hang of sim racing enough to come within 10 seconds of a good lap. Speaking of Surer, I am reminded of a conversation I had with a German poster on rasf1 when we were discussing alternatives to RTL, and I suggested the Swiss network SF2 if he could get around the Swiss German. His comment was that he had no problems understanding Marc Surer. When I finally tuned in RTL I had to laugh. It may not seem like it, but Surer is speaking high German on RTL. If one tunes in the Swiss motor shows and sees Surer, the difference is remarkable. Sorry, waaaaaay off topic, but maybe good for a smile from a select few on RAS. Stephen

[email hidden] wrote: : In article <7uh5qj$o72$[email hidden]>, : "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote: :> Well, obviously, it was that 10mm of board that allowed him to be so : fast. :> : If you'd bother to read more about it, every team in F1 on record about : the issue states it's NO ADVANTAGE. : Are you ignorant? Or just uninformed? Or (c) possesses a better command of sarcasm than you do... :) Stephen

Steve Rosko <[email hidden]> wrote: That's partly why I was sympathetic to Simtek. I liked the gangly engineer who headed it. what was his name now... Wirth? I forget. Anyway, he seemed like a good "idea" man without the cash to do the things he really wanted to do. Stephen :>Lotus & Ferrari are nothing but souless corporates both :> :>without Mr C & mr E. : I was a big Lotus fan, but remember how quickly they went down hill with out : Colin? He was the "idea" man, the rest of the engineers just implemented : his concepts. His personality (and Enzo's) defined those teams. Today, I : agree, it's all corporate. The technology is better, but the personality is : gone.

Still, I would hate to see the last works team bow out. (Yes, yes, I know: "works" is ever a more problematical term, but still . . .) Question for new subthread: _Precisely when did Ferrari move from being an Institution, to a Souless Pit of Corruption? Seriously? DK Steve Ferguson <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7uh6m6$g3q$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote: > : On 18 Oct 1999 18:32:21 GMT, [email hidden] (Joao Silva) wrote: > > :>I disagree. > :>Formula 1 without Ferrari would no longer be Formula 1. > > : For some - I could live without them, they're simply another team. > : They were certainly an institution once, but that reputation has long > : since faded. It is kept alive in the dreams of the Tifosi, but that is > : all. > > Same for me. Any team with a budget exceeding 200 million USD who can't > afford to hire a few quality control personnel and use them properly is > strictly amateur. If you get a carbon fibre panel wrong by 10mm in the > aerospace industry, you throw it in the bin. With all the design work > done on computers now, there is no way a proposed part should slip past a > "virtual" template at the design stage, nor past a quality check after > production. > > Stephen >

I also liked: Formula One.......a time when the pursuit of speed was all that mattered. A time when the technology ignited the spirit of only the bravest and most skilled pilots. A time when the daring of one man/machine combination fueled his rivals to "one up" the performance - on a weekly basis. A time when the whole sport spiraled upwards into the ultimate road racing series, even beyond what we imagined it could be. A time when NASA hung around for "tips". Formula One.......a time when it was about speed in the purest sense of the word. -- Mark Jeangerard www.soundchaserweb.com New Mexico USA Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Formula One........a time when a privateer could compete on equal terms with > the manufacturers. A time when laughter was more common in pit lane than > grumbles. A time when a team in trouble and requiring a part would have it > loaned by a rival. A time when the drivers socialised before and after the > races. A time when losing a race was done so graciously. A time when > winning was done with equal grace > . > Formula One.......a time when it was a sport in the purest sense of the > word. >

Just my way of agreeing with you. The Shoe was brilliant beyond words. Unless that barge board was what did it. Yep, talked myself out of agreeing with you... that board was responsible for every bit of technique that we saw ooze from the Shoe's car. He was just a passenger. :-) -- Mark Jeangerard www.soundchaserweb.com New Mexico USA mark jeangerard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7uh5qj$o72$[email hidden]... > <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7ug3rk$4qe$[email hidden]... > > Interesting weekend to be sure :( Schumacher was brilliant beyond > > words... how people continue to disrespect this guy is beyond me. He's > > obnoxious and arrogant to be sure... to the extreme... but he is > > obviously THE BEST pilot on the planet right now. How he covers the > > McLarens by nearly 1 full second in qualifying is beyond me... Mika and > > David must feel like morons, driving the best car on the planet but a > > full second adrift of the master. How long has it been since a non- > > winner of a race so completely dominated the entire race in every way? > > > > Hammer > > Well, obviously, it was that 10mm of board that allowed him to be so fast. > > > -- > > Mark Jeangerard > www.soundchaserweb.com > New Mexico USA > >

Just my way of agreeing with you. The Shoe was brilliant beyond words. Unless that barge board was what did it. Yep, talked myself out of agreeing with you... that board was responsible for every bit of technique that we saw ooze from the Shoe's car. He was just a passenger. :-) -- Mark Jeangerard www.soundchaserweb.com New Mexico USA <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7uioci$v9n$[email hidden]... > In article <7uh5qj$o72$[email hidden]>, > "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > Well, obviously, it was that 10mm of board that allowed him to be so > fast. > > > > -- > > > > Mark Jeangerard > > If you'd bother to read more about it, every team in F1 on record about > the issue states it's NO ADVANTAGE. > > Are you ignorant? Or just uninformed? > > Hammer2k > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.

That is a distressing thought. I've seen that type of crap at Las Vegas. If they make the track inside the circle it will make Monaco look like Spa, comparitively. -- Mark Jeangerard www.soundchaserweb.com New Mexico USA RoboCat <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c5UO3.3726$[email hidden]... > After seeing how amazing that track in malaysia looked i am really worried > about what Inndianapolis might look like for the 2000 gp > are they building a real track or are they going to set red cones all over > the infield like many tracks do for the GT cars and other Formula racers?I > would be very embarrased by anything other than a full course makeover for > the F1 Boys. > Please, Please, Please dont let the Indianapolis people opt > for the cheap route. > >

Where I grew up, when I grew up, no one had locks on their doors. It would have been downright rude to do so. Had a storm popped up and separated me from my home while the Thompsons were on vacation and I had no shelter or food, the Thompsons would have been considered non-community minded. Of course, they *were* community minded because we all were. We all relied on each other. Looking out for our neighbor was "matter of habit". Why on earth wouldn't we? Common sense and necessity dictated most actions. Nowadays, we all (every one on this planet) still do rely on each other but there is so much separation, the accepted attitude becoming more selfish all the time, we are hard pressed to notice our connections. I live far away now and the old neighborhood is all bars and bolts. Everyone suspects each other of wrong doing, they're mostly right. They don't even know each others names. I figure at the end of this epoch we will have had enough and attitudes will start to swing back to the way it was when I grew up. When a fight in school meant fists only, one on one (strictly enforced by the community), and guns and knives were for camping. Then, after enough of that we will grow complacent and the punks will take advantage again and around and around we go. I don't think the human mind is allowed to evolve. Some sorta chemical thing or something. -- Mark Jeangerard www.soundchaserweb.com New Mexico USA Meiji <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > There's a tendancy for people to assume yesterday was better. My grandparents > do that a lot... "No crime, you could leave your doors open all day blah > blah" however it's never the truth. > > Bruce is obviously paying too much attention to either books or his memory > and not enough to the facts. > > M > > [email hidden] (Zonkie) wrote in > <7uh91r$4q6$[email hidden]>: > > >hehhe. This is utter tripe. Cheating existed and was prevalanet even befo re > >the commercial days of F1. IO suggest you re-read an article on last years > >Motor Sport...(looking for Vol no later....) > > > >You can romantacise all you like bruce, but stick to the facts in hand... > > > >Z.

You want to know what that would be like? Come over here for a while. If it's older than twenty years, out it goes! What? That old cathedral? Get rid of it! Put in a shiny new Ford dealership! Those Redwood trees have got to be 300 years old. Get rid of them! We could put an "upscale community" there. Traditions? I thought I saw those on sale at Dillards. :-) -- Mark Jeangerard www.soundchaserweb.com New Mexico USA Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > That's very true, John.....we can all live without any of the teams that > make up the current F1 circus, just as we can all live without other > long-standing traditions and institutions throughout the world. > What a forlorn place it would be. And what a terribly sad bunch would > populate it. > > Toodles. > BK > > > John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > For some - I could live without them, they're simply another team. > > They were certainly an institution once, but that reputation has long > > since faded. It is kept alive in the dreams of the Tifosi, but that is > > all. > > > > > > -----------== 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 ==-----

I would love to have the entire archive in my personal collection. (hint hint) -- Mark Jeangerard www.soundchaserweb.com New Mexico USA Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Flavour Rigolletto" I think I referred to him in a little e-zine I once > worked with!! :o) > ==-----

David I read this elsewhere after I posted my reply to you! Wow. Ron Dennis can be a real idiot can't he :-). 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. > Unfortunately, McLaren's official position is 180 degrees opposite to their > original off-hand comments. They are now calling for the FIA to DQ Ferrari.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> [link lost in import] > Dave > -- > ***************************************************** > David A. Ewing 303-544-5454 > *****************************************************

John > On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 20:03:29 +0100, "Lawrence Edwards" > >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

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >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. > The difference there is in proving it - you can easily see that Mika > had no advantage, and the stopwatch shows what advantage cutting a > chicane proffers - smart drivers slow down a touch to ensure that > sector time is slower than normal. In addition the stewards have the > luxury of time to deliberate and a range of options as a penalty.

Accepted, it may be difficult or even impossible to prove that Ferrari gained no significant advantage but I honestly believe that 1cm of barge board couldn't make any significant difference. The wear on the Ferrari tyres seems to be more of a moot point however. I have to admit to not knowing what the rules say, I would be interested to know if they specify what the punishment is for having over-size body work. If the rules specifically say that dq is the only consequence then I would have to agree with you that Ferrari should be excluded. What about when James Hunt had his dq overturned and went on to win the championship? Surely the governing body does have the option - or are you just saying that any other decision would be impossible morally? It's not just Bernie's Wallet that is bulging. I think that all of the big teams have gained massively from Bernie's antics. Bernie seems to me to have been very clever in sharing the money around just enough to keep his power base happy. I would enjoy a show down in Suzuka but I agree that the long term interests of the sport are more important. They can still tell Ron where to go :-) Lawrence

Barton Presumably the Germans have placed their towells around the sauna before you wake up? Lawrence > > Exfolliants? Canards? Soltices? Germans? > > Just what in Heavens name is going on at your house, Bart???!!!!! > It all started innocently enough with a backyard sauna... > BB

Joao You are so right! It's the human condition to hark back to halcyon days. The 50s was a great era, but then so was the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's. Some of the qualities that existed in the 50's have diminished, such as spotsmanship and "fun". These have been replaced by other qualities such as the technology, the scale of F1, the size of the audience etc. It's unrealistic to expect things to stay the same, although this doesn't mean we should let Bernie's antics go unchecked! I have been happier about the state of F1 this year than over the last couple of years. I think it's actually getting better :-) Lawrence

> David > I read this elsewhere after I posted my reply to you! Wow. Ron Dennis can be > a real idiot can't he :-). And what was really idiotic was his race strategy for Hakkinen! Running him on the harder, slower tires that could have enabled him to only make one stop, yet going for a two stop race, and keeping him out behind Shumacher for the entire first half of the race. So they saved 2 seconds on the first refuelling, but lost 20+ seconds on the second one, plus some time behind Schumacher, and possibly some time for carrying a heavier fuel load than they needed early in the race. Baffling. Dave Ewing ***************************************************** David A. Ewing *****************************************************

From www.atlasf1.com As all sides prepare for the hearing on Ferrari's appeal this coming Friday, new information is being revealed over how Ferrari's infringement was discovered. Today's Daily Express reveals that the Ferraris of Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher had passed the technical test of the scrutineers at Sepang, they were weighed and cleared and were about to leave the inspection area when FIA's Joe Bauer suddenly called them back, only to immediately spot the missing 10mm on the cars' barge-boards. This lead many within the F1 circus to believe that Bauer was tipped off by someone from a competing team as to the existence of the infringement. "We think someone alerted the FIA to this problem whereas before they have never given this a moment's thought, like the rest of us," said Jean Todt, the Ferrari sporting director. "I don't know who it was. We will have to wait and see." Something fishy here... TF

Quoted text (18 lines)

>> David >> I read this elsewhere after I posted my reply to you! Wow. Ron Dennis can >be >> a real idiot can't he :-). >And what was really idiotic was his race strategy for Hakkinen! Running him >on >the harder, slower tires that could have enabled him to only make one stop, >yet >going for a two stop race, and keeping him out behind Shumacher for the >entire >first half of the race. So they saved 2 seconds on the first refuelling, but >lost 20+ seconds on the second one, plus some time behind Schumacher, and >possibly some time for carrying a heavier fuel load than they needed early in >the race. Baffling. >Dave Ewing

STOOOPID, was more like it... How much do the strategists get paid again...? -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Go Green!!! MSU (At least we beat Univ. of Michigan...) Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc If all the world's a stage, where is the audience sitting? Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

> (snip) > It all started innocently enough with a backyard sauna... > (unsnip) > There I was, 250 pounds of sweating pork-chops and sucking on a Schlitz, > when the pinewood door creaked on its hinges, the steam parted as the cold > desert air rushed in and there _she_ stood........ In nothing but a flimsy burnoose and a pickelhaube...and then it struck me (THUD!)...what a sap she had!

> Barton > Presumably the Germans have placed their towells around the sauna before you > wake up? It was waking up wearing nothing but a pickelhaube... BB

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > A statistic (of limited interest, I would imagine): Exactly > Of the (what is it....eleven? Twelve?) teams running in Grands Prix in 1999, > only one of them was entering events when Formula One commenced....over 40 > years ago. Well, McLaren has been around for a number of years now, and the other half of the partnership was in GP racing before Ferrari, so they are not without pedigree... But BAR (I'm really glad they changed the name from Tyrrel), Benetton, Stewart (although JYS brings a lot of history, but once he is gone....), Minardi, Williams, Arrows, Prost (another good name change), Sauber and Jordan (my fav among the current teams :-) means little or nothing in this respect F1 is just as much about the myth and the history it brings, as the actual spectacle itself, heck, if a spectacle was all it took, we could all be watching the IRL or something, F1 is supposed to be something really special, something that no other series can match, and these days that has to be tied in with it's history in some way, at least for me Cart has better racing, they actually overtake several times during a race, and sometimes with technically indentical cars as well so they have to do something right over there, Touring cars has more action, Nascar has.......something I guess :-), you get the point, without history and technology, what do we have left in F1, a bunch of cars that look like F3000 or something, yes I love F1, but I could have loved it more..... (see Bart, just under one full screen of text in 1024x768 on a 17" monitor :-) -- Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/

Zonkie wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > >Now let's be fair and honest, Mr. Z. > >ALL.....repeat, ALL the teams that are entered in F1 today are either > >soulless corporations in their own right or are backed by same. > > > >BK > > I've never implied otherwise. Some insist on romantising Fiat and (who own's > Lotus these days?) as some kind of romantic notion....

Uhm, take away the myth and history from F1 and what do you have left ? The IRL ? > Not me. Guess not...... -- Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/

(snip) It all started innocently enough with a backyard sauna... (unsnip) There I was, 250 pounds of sweating pork-chops and sucking on a Schlitz, when the pinewood door creaked on its hinges, the steam parted as the cold desert air rushed in and there _she_ stood......... BK > > Exfolliants? Canards? Soltices? Germans? > > Just what in Heavens name is going on at your house, Bart???!!!!! > It all started innocently enough with a backyard sauna... > BB -----------== 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 ==-----

Amen. RIP Formula One. > I also liked: > Formula One.......a time when the pursuit of speed was all that mattered. A > time when the technology ignited the spirit of only the bravest and most > skilled pilots. A time when the daring of one man/machine combination fueled > his rivals to "one up" the performance - on a weekly basis. A time when the > whole sport spiraled upwards into the ultimate road racing series, even > beyond what we imagined it could be. A time when NASA hung around for > "tips". > Formula One.......a time when it was about speed in the purest sense of the

Quoted text (13 lines)

> word. > -- > Mark Jeangerard > www.soundchaserweb.com > New Mexico USA > > Formula One........a time when a privateer could compete on equal terms > with > > the manufacturers. A time when laughter was more common in pit lane

than

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > grumbles. A time when a team in trouble and requiring a part would have > it > > loaned by a rival. A time when the drivers socialised before and after > the > > races. A time when losing a race was done so graciously. A time when > > winning was done with equal grace > > . > > Formula One.......a time when it was a sport in the purest sense of the > > word.

-----------== 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 ==-----

(snip) (unsnip) In one sentence you have explained all. Thanks, Meiji. All looking back

Quoted text (37 lines)

> does is make me feel older than I feel normally and I'm reasonable enough > to remember the bad parts of the past as well as the good parts. > That members of a generation do this isn't under dispute, whether or not > I will is a different matter. My father is very much realist about the > past and I don't see me changing so much that I become different to the > way I am now. > So to summarise Mr Kennewell (I'm trying to be as patronising as you > here, does it work?): Just because you're incapable of looking back with > any kind of realism don't assume the rest of us are the same. > Regards > M > >HAHAHA! > >Let's see what _YOU_ romanticise about in another 20 - 30 years, Mr. > >Meiji!! "The best years of F1 were the [insert decade at the beginning > >of which you were really grabbed by F1].........." > >We all do it because it is invariably directly associated with our mid > >-***s through late twenties, early thirties....certainly before > >permanent partnerships/families are formed. They are always the times > >where our recollections are always "good". > >Every generation has done it and will do it and yours, my smug friend, > >will be _EXACTLY_ the same! > >And you know what is the best thing about this? Knowing that I'm 110% > >right!!! LOL! :o) > >BK

-----------== 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 ==-----

Exactly the same here. In fact, my dad (who has lived in the same house in a small country town for almost 50 years) still leaves the back door unlocked when he's out. That's so any friends or neighbours who call in to drop something off can pop it inside out of the weather. -----------== 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 ==-----

It's similar here, Mark, although there are safeguards in place (National rust, Heritage Commission etc.) to make it harder for developers to run riot. BK > You want to know what that would be like? Come over here for a while. If > it's older than twenty years, out it goes! What? That old cathedral? Get rid

Quoted text (37 lines)

> of it! Put in a shiny new Ford dealership! Those Redwood trees have got to > be 300 years old. Get rid of them! We could put an "upscale community" > there. > Traditions? I thought I saw those on sale at Dillards. > :-) > -- > Mark Jeangerard > www.soundchaserweb.com > New Mexico USA > > That's very true, John.....we can all live without any of the teams that > > make up the current F1 circus, just as we can all live without other > > long-standing traditions and institutions throughout the world. > > What a forlorn place it would be. And what a terribly sad bunch would > > populate it. > > Toodles. > > BK > > > For some - I could live without them, they're simply another team. > > > They were certainly an institution once, but that reputation has long > > > since faded. It is kept alive in the dreams of the Tifosi, but that is > > > all. > > -----------== 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 > ==----- -----------== 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 ==-----

So would I Mark. When my PC died over a year ago I lost what had here and my old ISP, who promised to archive the collection and cut it to CD, never did.....it is now ether-waste. :o( BK

Quoted text (13 lines)

> I would love to have the entire archive in my personal collection. (hint > hint) > -- > Mark Jeangerard > www.soundchaserweb.com > New Mexico USA > > "Flavour Rigolletto" I think I referred to him in a little e-zine I once > > worked with!! :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 ==-----

Well, FIAT have owned Ferrari for many years and Lotus are as dead as the parrot. BK

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >Now let's be fair and honest, Mr. Z. > >ALL.....repeat, ALL the teams that are entered in F1 today are either > >soulless corporations in their own right or are backed by same. > >BK > I've never implied otherwise. Some insist on romantising Fiat and (who

own's

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Lotus these days?) as some kind of romantic notion.... > Not me. > Z. > Please remove my_pants when replying.

-----------== 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 ==-----

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> Barton >> Presumably the Germans have placed their towells around the sauna before >you >> wake up? >It was waking up wearing nothing but a pickelhaube...

Should I even ASK what a pickelhaube is...? -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Go Green!!! MSU (At least we beat Univ. of Michigan...) Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc If all the world's a stage, where is the audience sitting? Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

>I have been happier about the state of F1 this year than over the last >couple of years. I think it's actually getting better :-) >Lawrence I agree with you, this season despite the wacky happenings that have gone on has been quite exciting and far from the boring McLaren dominated runaway season I expected when I saw Schumacher go flying off into that tire wall. Let's hope next season is even better and that we can continue to have more than two teams competing for the championship, it's been nice to see Jordan and Stewart up there on the podiums, maybe next year will be Jordan's year and we can have a three way fight, I certainly hope so and look forward to it, and I see the possibility of Ralf getting some good results if Williams can get him a competitive ride and the BMWs don't detonate too often <G> Suzuka (no matter which way the appeal goes) has been tainted for me, and I am already looking forward to next year, I think this year's championship will always have a big star next to it the way the '94 championship always does for me when someone mentions it. Seeyas on the track. --John (Joao) Silva GPL Ferrari driver. Powerslide Racing Team - GMSS League F1 division. Rossi Razzi Racing Team - IGPLC League F2 division.

Really? I think you need to look at the entire paragraph rather than one sentence. I'm sure we can all take on part out of context and make a point. For someone who likes to be percieved as one of the more mature members of ras you're acting like a News of the World journalist more and more. M

And there are random checks at pre race scrutineering? Mark

Quoted text (16 lines)

> It would have been found if Ferrari had scored points!. Checks on > non-scoring cars are RANDOM, not mandatory. > > Well maybe the FIA should be thinking about getting their own house in > order > > before standing in judgement. If the Stewards had done their job > correctly > > at the two previous races, this "cheat" bargeboard would have been > > discovered at a meeting where ***all points were scored by Erve. > > I'm damned sure that Brawn would have had things sorted for this race > where > > it really mattered.

Certainly nothing that bears any resemblance to a sport.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > >Now let's be fair and honest, Mr. Z. > > >ALL.....repeat, ALL the teams that are entered in F1 today are either > > >soulless corporations in their own right or are backed by same. > > >BK > > I've never implied otherwise. Some insist on romantising Fiat and (who

own's

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > Lotus these days?) as some kind of romantic notion.... > Uhm, take away the myth and history from F1 and what do you have left ? > The IRL ? > > Not me. > Guess not...... > -- > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ > "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/

-----------== 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 ==-----

(The saga is continued below!!!)....... > > (snip) > > It all started innocently enough with a backyard sauna... > > (unsnip) > > There I was, 250 pounds of sweating pork-chops and sucking on a Schlitz, > > when the pinewood door creaked on its hinges, the steam parted as the cold > > desert air rushed in and there _she_ stood........ > In nothing but a flimsy burnoose and a pickelhaube...and then it struck > me (THUD!)...what a sap she had! ........and what a sap I was for believing her when she had told me, the previous night under the heaving softness of her goose-down doona, that it was I that she had the hots for and _not_ Zebediah, the club-footed dwarfish henchman of Doctor Ng, the maniacal Vietnamese warlord with offices in New York, Paris, London and Berlin. -----------== 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 ==-----

I don't "like to be perceived" as anything, squire. What impression another draws from my scribbles here is entirely up to them. However, I did read your entire paragraph and I've just re-read it to ensure that I didn't miss anything regarding your statement on romanticising. The sentence is a statement in itself and that's all I was commenting on. Simple. > Really? I think you need to look at the entire paragraph rather than one > sentence. I'm sure we can all take on part out of context and make a point.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> For someone who likes to be percieved as one of the more mature members of > ras you're acting like a News of the World journalist more and more. > M > >In one sentence you have explained all. > >Thanks, Meiji.

-----------== 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 ==-----

Quoted text (23 lines)

> (The saga is continued below!!!)....... > > > (snip) > > > It all started innocently enough with a backyard sauna... > > > (unsnip) > > > There I was, 250 pounds of sweating pork-chops and sucking on a Schlitz, > > > when the pinewood door creaked on its hinges, the steam parted as the > cold > > > desert air rushed in and there _she_ stood........ > > In nothing but a flimsy burnoose and a pickelhaube...and then it struck > > me (THUD!)...what a sap she had! > ........and what a sap I was for believing her when she had told me, the > previous night under the heaving softness of her goose-down doona, that it > was I that she had the hots for and _not_ Zebediah, the club-footed dwarfish > henchman of Doctor Ng, the maniacal Vietnamese warlord with offices in New > York, Paris, London and Berlin.

You guys scare me................. -- Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/

> Should I even ASK what a pickelhaube is...? Ja, ja! A pickelhaube is the WWI helmet worn (originally, I guess) by Prussian officers -- it's the one with the big spike on top -- very snazzy... BB

Gad! Do you know how long we could keep this up? BB > (The saga is continued below!!!).......

The manufactured drama continues. To understand the full odiferousness of these stories you must first understand that Michael Schumacher is Jean Todt's "Golden Boy," and that Todt rabidly and publicly dislikes Eddie Irvine, perhaps to the point where he would allow Ferrari to lose both Championships rather than have Irvine be the first to win the titles for Ferrari in 20 years. The "where's the missing wheel?" pitstop fiasco has for some weeks been rumored to have been Jean Todt's way of keeping Irvine away from a firm grasp on the Championship, Todt at that time believing that a newly-fit Schumacher would make it back in time to wrestle his points lead back. Read on, if you dare -- or care: From Autosport 10/20/1999: <<Ferrari Chief's Future In Balance Ferrari chief Jean Todt is facing the sack if the team fails to win its appeal against disqualification from the Malaysian Grand Prix, according to press reports. The Italian team will learn on Friday whether Eddie Irvine will be reinstated as winner of last Sunday's race. Both Irvine and second placed Michael Schumacher were stripped of their points after scrutineers found an airflow board to be a centimetre too small. Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo had backed Todt, despite his offers to resign after the Kuala Lumpar debacle. However, English newspaper reports now state that Todt's position could be in jeopardy if the appeal fails. According to The Sun, a source said, 'Luca feels betrayed by people to whom he has given money, prestige and faith in their abilities. 'That part went unnoticed in the factory, in wind-tunnel checks and during car assembly. It's incredible.' Ferrari is claiming the part did not cause any improvement in the cars' handling.>> From * October 21 '99 * ::: T H E W E E K L Y D A I L Y F 1 N E W S : <<October 21 1999 * 07:46 AM, GMT 1 // Enough is enough! by Paul Kelly FRIDAY is D Day for Formula One. The farce has gone on long enough and finally the REAL powers behind the sport are about to place a wake-up call to the FIA. Despite all the cash poured in by constructors and sponsors, without spectators and TV viewers, the sport can't get off the grid. If the FIA insist on turning down the Ferrari appeal then the fans they have won over this year will desert the sport in droves. As things stand, even if Ferrari decide to race (which of course they will) will anyone bother to watch? Even I'M undecided! Another terribly unfair consequence of all this is Michael not getting the praise he deserves. In all the bickering, finger-pointing and recriminations, the drive of the year has been all but forgotten about. We know now that he WAS sulking but what a way to shut his critics up. "If Eddie's behind me at the end, of course, I'll let him pass," ....we all fell for that. He did exactly what he should have done (unselfishly) from the beginning and let Irvine through. The perfect team race. Flavio Briatore cut through all the bull and put everything in perspective: "McLaren knew about the board since Germany but waited until it suited them to play their cards. There are no secrets in the pit lane - we would have done the same at Benneton." So, Ron Dennis can whinge all he wants. Nobody, least of all Mika Hakkinen, wants to win the championship this way. All the teams have their "disqualification" stories. Johnny Herbert had the same problem in '95 but in his case it was 150cm over...not TEN! OK, so rules are rules...but stupid rules are still stupid and should be changed. If there was no noticeable advantage (remember Germany? Didn't hear Dennis "Dropping a dime" on Ferrari then) then at worst, the team should be fined and lose their constructors' points but drivers can't honestly be held responsible for whatever "hidden agenda" Monsieur Todt may have in his partisan little head. At least Eddie didn't win the title for Ferrari, HIS boy has next year to do that...oh yeah, Jean....very clever!!! Even if the *** theory is off the planet, he should be fired. Three wheels do not a racing car make!!! Even the most ardent F1 fans sometimes don't bother with the Cart series (except to see the next Jacques) but Sunday's race (except for the yellow flags again) was a lesson for the Paris Fat Cats. The street course was extremely tight but pole-setter Dario Franchitti lead from go and might have been caught by Drivers Championship leader and rival Montoya, until he made his only mistake all season and hit a tyre wall. Quite a few drivers were black flagged but the penalty decisions were made straight away and didn't have to wait for rival teams to lodge protests. Now the title goes to the last race - and the way things are going - it may well be more exciting than its posh cousin. [And THIS from a Brit!--BB]>> Now let me add MY 200 cents: Everybody thinks Ecclestone's Evil Empire is invulnerable -- but it is NOT: it's built entirely upon the good will and interest of television audiences worldwide. In the two days following the asininity at Malaysia, the FIA, McLaren International, and Ferrari websites were simply besieged -- it was impossible to log on. Fans are disgusted, as well they might be. This new evidence of Ron Dennis' stupefyingly stupid skullduggery and Jean Todt's Pyrrhic favoritism makes great yellow journalism, but bad -- really BAD -- sport. The only people who'll come out of this NOT smelling like a charnel house will be the drivers, who have acted professionally, while their masters have allowed greed, hubris, and spite to make highly-public fools of themselves. It cannot escape Ecclestone that he has backed himself into a pretty unpleasant corner: while the EU is actively fighting to dismember his ***hold on the Holy Grail of TV rights for F1 motorcycles and cars, his "Team Bosses" -- as official Supremo of FOCA, the Teams can only be thought of as "his" -- are playing at truly Machiavellian internecine warfare, to the delight of the motoring press, which uniformly despises -- with good reason, by *their* lights -- Ecclestone and the Empire he has built: more importantly, the Empire he has most definitely NOT shared, and whose playing field he alone has defined, to the obvious discomfiture of many who would stand to profit by his sharing. It also cannot have escaped Ecclestone's notice that the largest consumer nation in the world, the United States, is not exactly weeping in desperation that it has been out of the F1 loop for many years. NASCAR, with its give-and-take of rules and remuneration among the sanctioning body, the sponsors, and the teams, makes tons of money that never once so much as even touches Bernie's fingers in passing. That alone must be gall and wormwood. Add the fact that most American motorsports enthusiasts don't know and/or don't care who Ecclestone is, and that must be quite a blow to the Napoleon-Complex Ego that is Bernard Ecclestone, Esq. Such a blow, in fact, that he has stooped to dealing with the village idiot of American Motorsports, Tony George, in building a ridiculous Mickey-Mouse venue within the hallowed confines of Indianapolis Motor Speedway (ironically enough, itself kept from extinction only by the recent addition of a wildly-popular NASCAR race -- the IRL could never keep the joint open by itself) to present the USGP2000. Somehow, the USGP2000 ballyhoo fizzles like post-podium Mo?t when you look at the circuit plan: it makes the late, unlamented Meadowlands and Caesar's Palace tracks look like Spa by comparison. Elsewhere in the US, entrepreneurs like Danny Panoz are forming alliances -- often with non-Ecclestone-aligned European stalwarts like the ACO -- to fill the gaping void left in U.S. professional-series racing by the chronic navel-contemplation of the SCCA and the commercial implosion of IMSA. CART, unfortunately (or maybe fortunately, considering the level the IRL has rapidly sunk to) fragmented from IRL by Tony George's Ecclestonian Ego, continues to show the Europeans what capital-R Racing is all about, and independent GT and Touring Car series in Europe -- owing nothing to Bernie -- do likewise. F1 *used* to be the pinnacle of the sport; now it's just the pinnacle of extremely high-dollar soap-opera. Friday, October 22, 1999, could well be far more than a simple decision about 10cm of barge board -- no matter which way the decision goes, this whole seamy episode has --again -- exposed the noisome, putrescent white underbelly of Formula Ecclestone, and it has NOT been an appealing (pardon teh pun) sight: how many people will be permanently turned off by the *** end of the 1999 season remains to be seen, but I don't think F1 will come out the other end of this weekend, or week, or however long they hem and haw, without major damage to its already-rancid prestige. Bart Brown

> The manufactured drama continues.. .... Well said, Bart. Bob Curtin Worcester Area Strategy & Tactics Exchange http://www.tiac.net/users/ten10ths/ "If God had intended men to join the Army he would have given us green, baggy skin"

Barton Spencer Brown wrote and wrote and then wrote some more... Very well put Barton - excellent post IMHO As for "unfair consequence of all this is Michael not getting the praise he deserves" - not sure about this. I think Michael got heaps of praise & proved to the public at large he can be a team player - something that was under scrutiny. The cynical side of me though sees Michael proving he can do his utmost to help his team mate win the Championship - but the Championship is still open for Michael to bring back to Ferrari after all these years and be the complete "Golden Boy". It all seems too perfect - I wonder what his secret desires are for the outcome tomorrow? Tony

Quoted text (10 lines)

> The manufactured drama continues. To understand the full odiferousness > of these stories you must first understand that Michael Schumacher is > Jean Todt's "Golden Boy," and that Todt rabidly and publicly dislikes > Eddie Irvine, perhaps to the point where he would allow Ferrari to lose > both Championships rather than have Irvine be the first to win the > titles for Ferrari in 20 years. The "where's the missing wheel?" pitstop > fiasco has for some weeks been rumored to have been Jean Todt's way of > keeping Irvine away from a firm grasp on the Championship, Todt at that > time believing that a newly-fit Schumacher would make it back in time to > wrestle his points lead back. Read on, if you dare -- or care:

Jean Todt's preference for Schumacher over Irvine is certainly true, but I seriously doubt that he would sabotage Irvine in this manner. The missing tire pitstop was just a result of Salo making an unexpected stop when Irvine's tires were already set out for him. When Salo came in, they had to quickly discard Irvine's tires and get Salo's, and one of Irvine's tires was misplaced in the confusion. Also, the missing wheel fiasco was in the previous race (at Nurburgring). Schumacher was already mathematically eliminated and had no chance of "wrestling his points lead back". Seeing as how Todt could very well lose his job over all this, it makes no sense to me that he would have any part in this. Dave ***************************************************** David A. Ewing *****************************************************

>If you'd bother to read more about it, every team in F1 on record about >the issue states it's NO ADVANTAGE. >Are you ignorant? Or just uninformed? I don't know, are you? Or perhaps just rude? Let me quote one Mr. Edde Irvine talking specifically about the new barge boards (I am presuming he would know more than you, but I'm sure you'll dispute that...) "We pretty much had the car as in the Nurburgring, I could quite easily have put the car on pole [in the Nurburgring] if I had put a lap together. Here [Sepang] was the first time we showed it. In testing before Nurburgring we went backwards a little bit, but we tested after that and understood what we had done wrong. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S A BIG STEP FORWARD". Is that okay, or would neon and skywriting be clearer? Cheers! John

> but the Championship is still open > for Michael to bring back to Ferrari after all these years and be the > complete "Golden Boy". It all seems too perfect - I wonder what his secret > desires are for the outcome tomorrow? > Tony Fascinating, isn't it? Whatever happens, the more and more public exposition of Jean Todt's agenda can't do much for his job security. That's the other side of the "soulless corporation" coin, though: when Enzo was alive, he would support the most boneheaded team managers (Eugenio Dragoni comes immediately to mind), ultimately to the Maranello team's sorrow. Historically, FIAT's corporate subsidisation of Ferrari has always, as a gentleman's agree between the Agnelli and Ferrari families, been very "hands-off"... but commercial pressures that Ferrari in his heyday could ignore with imperial hauteur are a very different proposition to the modern incarnation known as "Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro." While FIAT guards (at a safe and low profile remove) Ferrari as the Italian National Treasure it most certainly is, Marlboro -- already under consumer pressures of its own -- cannot afford to alienate the public. And as much as the tifosi love high opera, treason in high places -- and to the tifosi, Maranello ranks somewhere above the Vatican -- must be dealt with severely and decisively...which could very well prove to be very bad news for Todt. What a prophetic name! Bart

> Seeing as how Todt could very well lose his job over all this, it makes no sense to me > that he would have any part in this. > Dave Perhaps...but then, in matters at this public level, appearances are unfortunately often more persuasive than facts. Should Todt fall over this, it would hardly be the first time such a thing had happened, nor Ferrari the first team to fall to such pressures. Even DiMontezemolo has been in and out the door at Maranello more than once... BB

Yeah, but what a wonderful *** his was! my favourite driver for sure :) The Dude kirjoitti viestiss? >>So you didn't have respect for Alain Prost or Nigel Mansell, or.. ? >I never like Prost after his "incidents" with Senna, and Nigel always seemed to >-The Dude? >Check out The Dude's radio show on 90.9 FM Indianapolis, B91.

LOL!! We are going into print just as soon as possible, Goy.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > (The saga is continued below!!!)....... > > > > (snip) > > > > It all started innocently enough with a backyard sauna... > > > > (unsnip) > > > > There I was, 250 pounds of sweating pork-chops and sucking on a

Schlitz, > > > > when the pinewood door creaked on its hinges, the steam parted as the > > cold > > > > desert air rushed in and there _she_ stood........ > > > In nothing but a flimsy burnoose and a pickelhaube...and then it struck > > > me (THUD!)...what a sap she had! > > ........and what a sap I was for believing her when she had told me, the > > previous night under the heaving softness of her goose-down doona, that it > > was I that she had the hots for and _not_ Zebediah, the club-footed dwarfish > > henchman of Doctor Ng, the maniacal Vietnamese warlord with offices in New

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > York, Paris, London and Berlin. > You guys scare me................. > -- > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ > "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/

-----------== 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 ==-----

Now that Viagra is here.....indefinitely, Bart. Ooops! You were talking about the story......!!!

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Gad! Do you know how long we could keep this up? > BB > > (The saga is continued below!!!).......

-----------== 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 ==-----

David, think back to when Surtees had his legs chopped from under him.....at what proved to be the expense of Ferraris fortunes at that time (that same season I think). The chopping was started by the Team Manager, a pinch-faced bloke whose name is on the tip of my tongue and who hated Surtees guts with a vengeance. History repeats.

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > The manufactured drama continues. To understand the full odiferousness > > of these stories you must first understand that Michael Schumacher is > > Jean Todt's "Golden Boy," and that Todt rabidly and publicly dislikes > > Eddie Irvine, perhaps to the point where he would allow Ferrari to lose > > both Championships rather than have Irvine be the first to win the > > titles for Ferrari in 20 years. The "where's the missing wheel?" pitstop > > fiasco has for some weeks been rumored to have been Jean Todt's way of > > keeping Irvine away from a firm grasp on the Championship, Todt at that > > time believing that a newly-fit Schumacher would make it back in time to > > wrestle his points lead back. Read on, if you dare -- or care: > Jean Todt's preference for Schumacher over Irvine is certainly true, but I

seriously > doubt that he would sabotage Irvine in this manner. The missing tire pitstop was just > a result of Salo making an unexpected stop when Irvine's tires were already set out > for him. When Salo came in, they had to quickly discard Irvine's tires and get > Salo's, and one of Irvine's tires was misplaced in the confusion. > Also, the missing wheel fiasco was in the previous race (at Nurburgring). Schumacher > was already mathematically eliminated and had no chance of "wrestling his points lead > back". > Seeing as how Todt could very well lose his job over all this, it makes no sense to me

Quoted text (8 lines)

> that he would have any part in this. > Dave > ***************************************************** > David A. Ewing > *****************************************************

-----------== 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 ==-----

That would be Mr Dragoni Bruce. And appropriate name wouldn't you agree <G> I remember that he chopped Surtees in 1966, a xenophobic move to get his countryman Bandini into the team. He cited Surtee's outspoken criticisms of the v12 engines lack of power as the reason why he had to go. We all know that it is a cardinal sin for a driver to speak badly of the red one. Ask Mr Prost. Mark > David, think back to when Surtees had his legs chopped from under him.....at > what proved to be the expense of Ferraris fortunes at that time (that same > season I think). > The chopping was started by the Team Manager, a pinch-faced bloke whose name

Quoted text (13 lines)

> is on the tip of my tongue and who hated Surtees guts with a vengeance. > History repeats. > > > The manufactured drama continues. To understand the full odiferousness > > > of these stories you must first understand that Michael Schumacher is > > > Jean Todt's "Golden Boy," and that Todt rabidly and publicly dislikes > > > Eddie Irvine, perhaps to the point where he would allow Ferrari to

lose > > > both Championships rather than have Irvine be the first to win the > > > titles for Ferrari in 20 years. The "where's the missing wheel?" pitstop > > > fiasco has for some weeks been rumored to have been Jean Todt's way of > > > keeping Irvine away from a firm grasp on the Championship, Todt at that > > > time believing that a newly-fit Schumacher would make it back in time to > > > wrestle his points lead back. Read on, if you dare -- or care: > > Jean Todt's preference for Schumacher over Irvine is certainly true, but I

Quoted text (10 lines)

> seriously > > doubt that he would sabotage Irvine in this manner. The missing tire > pitstop was just > > a result of Salo making an unexpected stop when Irvine's tires were > already set out > > for him. When Salo came in, they had to quickly discard Irvine's tires > and get > > Salo's, and one of Irvine's tires was misplaced in the confusion. > > Also, the missing wheel fiasco was in the previous race (at

Nurburgring). > Schumacher > > was already mathematically eliminated and had no chance of "wrestling his > points lead > > back". > > Seeing as how Todt could very well lose his job over all this, it makes no

Quoted text (11 lines)

> sense to me > > that he would have any part in this. > > Dave > > ***************************************************** > > David A. Ewing > > ***************************************************** > -----------== 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 ==-----

snip

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Let me quote one Mr. Edde Irvine talking specifically about the new > barge boards (I am presuming he would know more than you, but I'm sure > you'll dispute that...) > "We pretty much had the car as in the Nurburgring, I could quite > easily have put the car on pole [in the Nurburgring] if I had put a > lap together. Here [Sepang] was the first time we showed it. In > testing before Nurburgring we went backwards a little bit, but we > tested after that and understood what we had done wrong. AS YOU CAN > SEE, IT'S A BIG STEP FORWARD".

I doubt, EI was talking about the barge boards here, just about the improved car in total. The chief engineer from Minardi said in an interview that those 10mm would do nothing (at most 0.1s) to help the performance of the car. Do you believe Eddie, or do you believe an engineer...? 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"

That's the lad! Yes....Dragoni. Thanks, Mark. > That would be Mr Dragoni Bruce. And appropriate name wouldn't you agree <G> > I remember that he chopped Surtees in 1966, a xenophobic move to get his > countryman Bandini into the team. He cited Surtee's outspoken criticisms of > the v12 engines lack of power as the reason why he had to go. > We all know that it is a cardinal sin for a driver to speak badly of the red

Quoted text (8 lines)

> one. Ask Mr Prost. > Mark > > David, think back to when Surtees had his legs chopped from under > him.....at > > what proved to be the expense of Ferraris fortunes at that time (that

same

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > season I think). > > The chopping was started by the Team Manager, a pinch-faced bloke whose > name > > is on the tip of my tongue and who hated Surtees guts with a vengeance. > > History repeats. > > > > The manufactured drama continues. To understand the full

odiferousness > > > > of these stories you must first understand that Michael Schumacher is > > > > Jean Todt's "Golden Boy," and that Todt rabidly and publicly dislikes > > > > Eddie Irvine, perhaps to the point where he would allow Ferrari to > lose > > > > both Championships rather than have Irvine be the first to win the > > > > titles for Ferrari in 20 years. The "where's the missing wheel?" > pitstop > > > > fiasco has for some weeks been rumored to have been Jean Todt's way of > > > > keeping Irvine away from a firm grasp on the Championship, Todt at > that > > > > time believing that a newly-fit Schumacher would make it back in time > to > > > > wrestle his points lead back. Read on, if you dare -- or care: > > > Jean Todt's preference for Schumacher over Irvine is certainly true, but

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I > > seriously > > > doubt that he would sabotage Irvine in this manner. The missing tire > > pitstop was just > > > a result of Salo making an unexpected stop when Irvine's tires were > > already set out > > > for him. When Salo came in, they had to quickly discard Irvine's

tires

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > and get > > > Salo's, and one of Irvine's tires was misplaced in the confusion. > > > Also, the missing wheel fiasco was in the previous race (at > Nurburgring). > > Schumacher > > > was already mathematically eliminated and had no chance of "wrestling > his > > points lead > > > back". > > > Seeing as how Todt could very well lose his job over all this, it

makes

Quoted text (14 lines)

> no > > sense to me > > > that he would have any part in this. > > > Dave > > > ***************************************************** > > > David A. Ewing > > > ***************************************************** > > -----------== 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 > ==----- -----------== 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 ==-----

On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 12:34:32 +0200, Ronald Stoehr >I doubt, EI was talking about the barge boards here, just about the >improved car in total. The chief engineer from Minardi said in an >interview that those 10mm would do nothing (at most 0.1s) to help >the performance of the car. As I mentioned at the start of my message, that was a quote from Eddie talking about the barge boards. I'm sure you're right, the chief engineer of Minardi will be better informed.... That _has_ to be rhetorical? Do I believe the guy who was driving the car, testing the car, involved in the setup and all the team meetings and strategy decisions, or do I believe someone from the back of the grid who saw the car in the pit-lane? Frankly I believe neither, but I put a lot more faith in Eddie's words than the engineers. Cheers! John

> I don't know, are you? Or perhaps just rude? Yes I was rude, and idiotic, and I apologized. Want to kick me around some more?? I do not dispute that, nice sarcasm there :) My information comes from the numerous articles at AtlasF1 where it's clearly stated by the designer at Jordan and at Mindardi that it is widely accepted there is (in Gascoyne's words) "no measurable advantage". I choose to believe what they are saying. If you do not, we'll just disagree. I deserved that. Cheers. You are of course quite correct, there was a complete and massive advantage for those no good Ferrari cheaters, and they won the race on advantages represented in 1cm of carbon fiber missing on each side of the car. Just think of the weight advantage they achieved!!!! :) You are right. I am wrong. Have a great day. Hammer Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> That would be Mr Dragoni Bruce. And appropriate name wouldn't you agree <G> > I remember that he chopped Surtees in 1966, a xenophobic move to get his > countryman Bandini into the team. He cited Surtee's outspoken criticisms of > the v12 engines lack of power as the reason why he had to go. > We all know that it is a cardinal sin for a driver to speak badly of the red > one. Ask Mr Prost.

Yeah, I loved that one, they had one of the worst chassis in F1 at the time I think, Prost told them so in no uncertain terms and was sacked !!! LOL, not only was Prost one of the best drivers ever in F1, but is regarded by many as possibly *the* best development driver in F1 ever, and they sacked him and brought in poor Ivan Capelli to replace him, you just knew the Ferrari would improve in huge steps from there on... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy

> As I mentioned at the start of my message, that was a quote from Eddie > talking about the barge boards. Let me quote one Mr. Edde Irvine talking specifically about the new barge boards... "We pretty much had the car as in the Nurburgring, I could quite easily have put the car on pole [in the Nurburgring] if I had put a lap together. Here [Sepang] was the first time we showed it. In testing before Nurburgring we went backwards a little bit, but we tested after that and understood what we had done wrong. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S A BIG STEP FORWARD". I think the misunderstanding here, John, is the lack of context. *You* say the quote from Eddie Irvine is regarding the Ferrari barge boards, and apparently you believe the last sentence, which you have emphasized, is Irvine's statement that something having been done to the barge boards is the reason for "THE BIG STEP FORWARD," but nowhere in the Irvine quote as you have cited it is there any reference to barge boards at all. Is there some part of the quote that you have excised -- for brevity's sake, perhaps -- that specifically indicates Irvine was talking about the barge boards? Where did you see the quote? I'd certainly be interested in the full text and context of a quote made by Irvine apparently some time before the DQ at Sepang in which he clearly states that the barge boards in question were the reason for Ferrari's much better showing in Malaysia than at the Luxembourg GP. Please let us know where we can find the whole quote. Thanks Bart Brown

Quoted text (30 lines)

>> As I mentioned at the start of my message, that was a quote from Eddie >> talking about the barge boards. >Let me quote one Mr. Edde Irvine talking specifically about the new >barge boards... >"We pretty much had the car as in the Nurburgring, I could quite >easily have put the car on pole [in the Nurburgring] if I had put a >lap together. Here [Sepang] was the first time we showed it. In >testing before Nurburgring we went backwards a little bit, but we >tested after that and understood what we had done wrong. AS YOU CAN >SEE, IT'S A BIG STEP FORWARD". >I think the misunderstanding here, John, is the lack of context. *You* >say the quote from Eddie Irvine is regarding the Ferrari barge boards, >and apparently you believe the last sentence, which you have emphasized, >is Irvine's statement that something having been done to the barge >boards is the reason for "THE BIG STEP FORWARD," but nowhere in the >Irvine quote as you have cited it is there any reference to barge boards >at all. Is there some part of the quote that you have excised -- for >brevity's sake, perhaps -- that specifically indicates Irvine was >talking about the barge boards? Where did you see the quote? I'd >certainly be interested in the full text and context of a quote made by >Irvine apparently some time before the DQ at Sepang in which he clearly >states that the barge boards in question were the reason for Ferrari's >much better showing in Malaysia than at the Luxembourg GP. Please let us >know where we can find the whole quote.

I don't see why it should make any difference whether Eddie Irvine was referring to the barge boards or not. It really should be immaterial whether there was an advantage to be gained or not. The fact is that the barge boards had a specification - for whatever reason is immaterial - that all cars should stay within. Now if the FIA or whoever decided that there was some reasoning behind why this should be so then all teams should have adhered to it. If they didn't like the specification when it was brought about then they should have complained about its significance then and not, once they have been caught out suddenly cry "Yes, but there's no advantage to be gained!" -- Peter Ives

Well, it makes no difference in a cosmic sense, though it would certainly be startling in the context of the Malaysian GP, as such a statement, relating specifically to the barge boards, would have had to have been made by Irvine long before they were found illegal (irvine was already out of the country and was unaware of the DQ until Jean Todt called him later), which would be a prefiguration of guilt so massive that it would be very difficult to understand why no one in the motoring press caught it, then or afterwards. For the purposes of this particular little corner of the cosmos, I was intending to show that, in a flurry of namecalling and brickbat tossing, Mr. Wallace had apparently become confused. So, to calm your nerves, I wasn't referring to the evidentiary impact upon the deliberations in Paris of whether or not Irvine said so-and-so, I was referring to the unfortunate hubris displayed in this very newsgroup when tempers get the better of sense. Bottom line: My remarks had nothing whatsoever to do with the DQ in Malaysia or the appeal in Paris, but had everything to do with how emotions can cause people to insist on positions that are just factually not true. Since writing my question to Mr. Wallace, I have researched the quote in question, and found it -- unfortunately chopped into two fairly equal parts -- in two separate and unrelated F1 news archives. The quote(s) in question were made by Irvine in the post-qualifying interview session in Sepang on Saturday October 16th, 1999, and at no time during this session, or in any other public pronouncement by Eddie Irvine during the race weekend, were the barge boards discussed, as far as has been reported. If the facts are otherwise, I have yet to discover them to be so, and -- as I said above -- such a pronouncement prior to the DQ would not only have sent the motorsports journalists present into paroxysms of purple prose, it would have made today's appeal meeting in Paris a completely moot point, and the appeal itself would never have been granted by the FIA. Speaking of which: <<Championship decision on Saturday Posted 21/10/1999 16:24:05 Atlas F1 News Press conference scheduled for 11am in Paris The result of Ferraris appeal against their disqualification in the Malaysian Grand Prix will be announced in a press conference on Saturday morning. A statement released by the FIA today said: "The president of the FIA [Max Mosley] will give a press conference on Saturday October 23 at 11 a.m. in Paris, at which the result of the Ferrari appeal will be announced and questions on this and other motor sport topics will be answered.">> > I don't see why it should make any difference whether Eddie Irvine was > referring to the barge boards or not.... > Peter Ives

> You're not a surgeon, by any chance, are you Bart? :o) No, nor do I play one on TV! Most people think I'm a***, but I just have an anal-retentive jones for the truth, as far as the truth can be ascertained... BB

You're not a surgeon, by any chance, are you Bart? :o)

Quoted text (34 lines)

> > As I mentioned at the start of my message, that was a quote from Eddie > > talking about the barge boards. > Let me quote one Mr. Edde Irvine talking specifically about the new > barge boards... > "We pretty much had the car as in the Nurburgring, I could quite > easily have put the car on pole [in the Nurburgring] if I had put a > lap together. Here [Sepang] was the first time we showed it. In > testing before Nurburgring we went backwards a little bit, but we > tested after that and understood what we had done wrong. AS YOU CAN > SEE, IT'S A BIG STEP FORWARD". > I think the misunderstanding here, John, is the lack of context. *You* > say the quote from Eddie Irvine is regarding the Ferrari barge boards, > and apparently you believe the last sentence, which you have emphasized, > is Irvine's statement that something having been done to the barge > boards is the reason for "THE BIG STEP FORWARD," but nowhere in the > Irvine quote as you have cited it is there any reference to barge boards > at all. Is there some part of the quote that you have excised -- for > brevity's sake, perhaps -- that specifically indicates Irvine was > talking about the barge boards? Where did you see the quote? I'd > certainly be interested in the full text and context of a quote made by > Irvine apparently some time before the DQ at Sepang in which he clearly > states that the barge boards in question were the reason for Ferrari's > much better showing in Malaysia than at the Luxembourg GP. Please let us > know where we can find the whole quote. > Thanks > Bart Brown

-----------== 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 ==-----

John Wallace schrieb:

Quoted text (18 lines)

> On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 12:34:32 +0200, Ronald Stoehr > >I doubt, EI was talking about the barge boards here, just about the > >improved car in total. The chief engineer from Minardi said in an > >interview that those 10mm would do nothing (at most 0.1s) to help > >the performance of the car. > As I mentioned at the start of my message, that was a quote from Eddie > talking about the barge boards. I'm sure you're right, the chief > engineer of Minardi will be better informed.... > >Do you believe Eddie, or do you believe an engineer...? > That _has_ to be rhetorical? Do I believe the guy who was driving the > car, testing the car, involved in the setup and all the team meetings > and strategy decisions, or do I believe someone from the back of the > grid who saw the car in the pit-lane?

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. Also, every expert interviewed during this week said exactly the same thing. The remaining question now is ONLY: is it appropriate to punish the drivers for an incorrect aerodynamic device without any performance gain? l8er ronny -- The box said "Windows 95 or better", so I installed LINUX! |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

>I do not dispute that, nice sarcasm there :) My information comes from >the numerous articles at AtlasF1 where it's clearly stated by the >designer at Jordan and at Mindardi that it is widely accepted there is >(in Gascoyne's words) "no measurable advantage". I choose to believe >what they are saying. If you do not, we'll just disagree. Sorry if my sarcasm was overblown :-) I do find it strange that someone believes people who are NOT involved at Derrari and have never driven the car. I also find it strange that the words of Eddie, the guy who drives the car, has a comparative benchmark from the old car, and has been involved in tests, meetings etc are so easily set aside. Until you can quantify the effects of those 1cm parts then any discussion on right and wrong as regards advantage is meaningless. As loss as we don't know we can use other evidence to support or deny the claim (Irvine, Gascoyne), but we cannot know. The one thing we CAN know is that the car was illegal - kinda makes the above discussion pointless... Cheers! John

On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 16:18:41 -0500, Barton Spencer Brown >I think the misunderstanding here, John, is the lack of context....Please let us >know where we can find the whole quote. Surely you can find the whole quote in my previous message? The context was supplied, and the quote quoted in it's entirety. Is usenet so bad that a quote can't be believed without actually seeing the printed paper? Are we so unwilling to believe a contrary opinion? Perhaps in that case I should quote the journalists name, home address and 'phone number so his veracity and credentials can be checked? Maybe see if he is anti or pro-Ferrari? FYI the quote is lifted ad nauseam from the Autosport of 21st October 1999, page 6, column 3, paragraph 7. Cheers! John PS - Just a personal whinge of mine, but please don't respond in the group and send the same message by e-mail as well. My mailbox is severely clogged up as it is and I just have to delete such messages to respond in the group. Thanks :-)

On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:10:29 +0200, Ronald Stoehr >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? I'll listen to Eddie. No. The question is "in the absence of any means to establish whether performance gain was made or not, is it right to punish the drivers for winning in an illegal car". The answer is yes. Cheers! John

On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 18:42:22 -0500, Barton Spencer Brown

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Since writing my question to Mr. Wallace, I have researched the quote in >question, and found it -- unfortunately chopped into two fairly equal >parts -- in two separate and unrelated F1 news archives. The quote(s) in >question were made by Irvine in the post-qualifying interview session in >Sepang on Saturday October 16th, 1999, and at no time during this >session, or in any other public pronouncement by Eddie Irvine during the >race weekend, were the barge boards discussed, as far as has been >reported.

From Autosport.... "The barge boards at the centre of the dispute were first run at last month's European GP, and have been kept covered at every opportunity. Before Sunday's race, Eddie Irvine said that they had significantly improved performance....[insert previous quotation here]. I hope this is sufficiently unequivocal. As ever though, this is still focussing on irrelevancies. The issue is not whether or not the car was faster in the race, but whether or not it was legal. I can't even see grounds for appeal, although I fully expect Ferrari to have their wrists mildly slapped and strings pulled furiously so that "Showdown in Suzuka" is back on. Cheers! John

> As ever though, this is still focussing on irrelevancies. The issue is > not whether or not the car was faster in the race, but whether or not > it was legal. I can't even see grounds for appeal, although I fully > expect Ferrari to have their wrists mildly slapped and strings pulled > furiously so that "Showdown in Suzuka" is back on. Well, wether we agree or not on this topic, at least you got the last part right John, Ferrari got the win back............ Personally, the only thing this has shown me is that FIA is unable to police their own rules properly, to me, *that* is the biggest issue here, and it has proven to be a sad story All the good intentions of a specific rule is totally waisted if it can't be policed properly, but it is not surprising that FIA doesn't understand this, they understand very little about most anything else, so why should this be different, anyone for a game of chess ? Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy

>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? Good luck to Eddie and Mika, but the whole thing utterly reeks of incompetence and is a shoddy way to run the world's premier racing series far less to win it. Cheers! John

> From Autosport.... "The barge boards at the centre of the dispute were first run at last month's European GP, and have been kept covered at every opportunity. Before Sunday's race, Eddie Irvine said that they had significantly improved performance....[insert previous quotation here]" I'm more curious than ever, now: while I've found the Irvine quote that begins "An all Ferrari front row is not bad for tomorrow. The car is pretty much the same as before the Nurburgring..." several times (including Autosport), I still haven't found the all-important contextual prolegomenon that you've quoted above. If you have the Autosport issue (paper mag) or E-zine quote at hand, please let me know the date of (better yet, a hypertext link to) the quote. I've been through every online archived story from the Sepang weekend at Autosport's site, and I just can't find it. I'd truly appreciate help in solving this mystery, moot point though it may seem to some...I'm keeping a chronicle of this season, and I hate to miss a direct quote as important as this. Speaking of moot points, did anyone seriously expect the FIA to rule otherwise? The F1 Drivers' and Manufacturers' championships are a business, not a sport -- though I still believe that on the track and in the pits, it's very much a sport for the drivers, engineers, and mechanics. On the track, the racing is real; it's the Championships that are manufactured and manipulated. Stirling Moss had a very interesting thing to say about the subject of his one-point miss of the 1958 Championship in his book with Ken Purdy: [my rough paraphrase] "If I was leading the race that would win me the championship today -- far in the lead, car going like a bomb, tires and oil to burn -- do you know what I'd do? On the last turn of the last lap, I'd pull over, park the car under a tree, pull of my helmet, and watch the end of the race. Why? What would winning one championship mean? Mike Hawthorn won a World Championship; did that make Mike a better driver than I am? I liked Mike, he was a wonderful chap, and when he was "on" he was very good. But Mike had a lot of "off" days, and when he was off, well...if Mike was a couple laps behind, he just gave it up. If I won five Championships, would that make me as good a driver as Fangio? Not on your life: I always felt I was better in sports cars than Fangio; he just didn't like them -- but in a GP car, he was the best, in my day. If I won the Championship TEN times it wouldn't have made me as GOOD a driver as Fangio." The last decade or so of F1 has seemed to me to have artificially blurred the drivers' side of the racing equation, Enzo Ferrari's 'ratio of car to driver." In Moss' era, and to a lesser extent on into the '60s and '70s, the good drivers picked the cars, not the other way around. Moss won GP races in Vanwalls, Maseratis, Mercedes, and Loti. Fangio in Ferraris, Mercedes, and Maseratis. Except for the Italian drivers, for whom driving for Ferrari was the Holy Grail, the good drivers who could afford to pick and choose picked the best, whatever they were; the rest got what was left over. When teams started getting the commercial wherewithal to fund an arms race, part of that arms race was buying the best drivers -- the relationship between manufacturers and drivers had changed, quietly but fundamentally. It changed even further in the Cosworth kitcar -- or, in Ferrari's pungent phrase, "garagiste" -- era, when there was less and less "manufacturer" identity, that role gravitating more toward the commercial entities -- tobacco companies and the like -- that provided the money. As has been cited many times, when Lotus gave up its name to become "John Player's Specials," a fundamental cog in the cosmos of F1 racing moved quite significantly. It has never moved back, though with the trend toward nationalism and "manufacturer" identity seen in the Stewart-Ford/Jaguar and "More Mercedes, Less McLaren" prospects for 2000, even THAT pendulum may be on a sort of backswing. So that leaves the drivers: the hired guns, loyal to none. Their world is, of necessity, different from that of the manufacturers': they maneuver for the best salaries, yes. They play the near-NASCAR game of "well, my Marlboro/Nokia/Tampax/Grecian Formula/Arrows was running pretty well...", yes. But just like In NASCAR, or anywhere where men and women have endured the many hardships required to get to the top of any motorports series, in the end they race. If you took Michael and Mika and Eddie and DC and the entire F1 field of drivers and dropped them into NASCAR sedans, likewise took Dale and Dale and Jeff and Bobby and the entire field of Winston Cup and dropped them into F1 cars, they would race...it might not be pretty, but every one of them would give it all they had within themselves to give. That's why we still watch -- after all the Byzantine politics, commercial maneuvering, internecine power plays, and just plain bullshit, these people race. Drop Moss in the middle of them, and he'd race, too -- anyone who caught this year's Monterey Historics would have to -- however bitterly -- agree to that. These men and women who strap themselves in and have a go, a *real* go, are special: they represent us; the level of commitment, skill, and dedication that we all, as humans, strive for, but rarely have the chance to demonstrate in such a simple, direct, and unequivocal way. Unlike most sports, the drivers perform alone, as we, in our deepest hearts, perform alone. They skirt the edge of danger which we -- civilized, coddled, and compartmentalized -- rarely, if ever, confront. That we live vicariously through them is trite, yet completely true.

>> Should I even ASK what a pickelhaube is...? >Ja, ja! A pickelhaube is the WWI helmet worn (originally, I guess) by >Prussian officers -- it's the one with the big spike on top -- very snazzy... >BB Oh...<sudden realization>...ouch.... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Go Green!!! MSU (At least we beat Univ. of Michigan...) Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc If all the world's a stage, where is the audience sitting? Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

What exactly does that term mean? I, being of ancient body, sometimes have problems with ***retention but I think it may be a bit different to what you're referring to! > > You're not a surgeon, by any chance, are you Bart? :o) > No, nor do I play one on TV! Most people think I'm a***, but I just > have an anal-retentive jones for the truth, as far as the truth can be ascertained... > BB -----------== 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 ==-----

From F1-update, 10/23/1999: <<Stewart abides by FIA ruling October 23: Stewart-Ford chief operating officer Paul Stewart commented that the team abide's by FIA's latest ruling, even though the team lost five points. "Fresh evidence was presented at the hearing by the FIA which acknowledged that the level of infringement was in fact half of that of the original measurement taken by the FIA technical delegate at the Malaysian Grand Prix. Based on the fact that five millimetres is the accepted level of tolerance applied to that particular measurement under FIA regulations, and the court was satisfied that no infringement had occurred, we accept the court's decision to uphold Ferrari's appeal.">> While some may see this as cynicism on the part of the FIA, it *is*, undeniably, a tidy, Solomon-like way to end the dispute: divide the baby in half, and suddenly the infringement falls within accepted tolerances. Speaking of which, someone earlier opined that FIA tech regs specified a tolerance of Zero. As anyone with a mechanical or enginering background can tell you, that's an impossibility, only remotely approached in the core assemblies of nuclear weaponry. I'm sure you've all seen slo-mo shots of F1 cars bounding over the curbing, the rear wings and bodywork staggering all over the place like a Funny Car at the staging lights. Does anyone seriously embrace the notion that such *** contortions could possibly keep *any* sort of bodywork, let alone the somewhat insecurely-mounted turning vanes, within Zero tolerance? A great and clever call by the FIA, and now let's get back to the drivers...

Right you are, Bruce: John Player's Gold Leaf Navy Cut "Racing For Britain" Lotus -- a title worthy of NASCAR! BB

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Well, if not a surgeon, you're a writer....or should be. > Nice piece, Bart. One very minor point....Lotus became "Gold Leaf" before > they became "John Player". I think the gloss started to dull when they > became the former. > BK

This thread has just set a record for length. While the topic has wandered, it is still the longest continuous thread to be posted her. Let's give this thread a hand. It beat the previous longest tread, "Your Mother!" by over 15 replies, and is still going. Wow. The Mocker

On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 00:03:19 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" >Pshaw! It hasn't been fit to carry that classification since Ecclestone >sold Brabham in order to concentrate fully on FOCA!! It may not have been fit to, but as much as it has declined nothing else has risen to replace it. How could any sport (other than football) have competed on world terms with the 1988-1990 F1 series involving the Senna/Prost cauldron with bit parts also for Mansell, Piquet etc? Cheers! John

On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 09:41:00 -0500, Barton Spencer Brown

Quoted text (12 lines)

>I'm more curious than ever, now: while I've found the Irvine quote that >begins "An all Ferrari front row is not bad for tomorrow. The car is >pretty much the same as before the Nurburgring..." several times >(including Autosport), I still haven't found the all-important >contextual prolegomenon that you've quoted above. If you have the >Autosport issue (paper mag) or E-zine quote at hand, please let me know >the date of (better yet, a hypertext link to) the quote. I've been >through every online archived story from the Sepang weekend at >Autosport's site, and I just can't find it. I'd truly appreciate help in >solving this mystery, moot point though it may seem to some...I'm >keeping a chronicle of this season, and I hate to miss a direct quote as >important as this.

From an earlier post, the quote is lifted ad nauseam from the Autosport of 21st October 1999, page 6, column 3, paragraph 7. No, I fully expected Ferrari's points to be reinstated and so perhaps, with hindsight, my recent posts have been as a result of getting angry in advance and hence quite acerbic. My apologies for that being the case! I lost faith with F1 for their ineptitude over the treatment of Senna in 1989 and early into 1990, and watched incredulous at Senna's manner of winning the 1990 championship going unpunished. Since then the racing has been as good as the rules have allowed, but the balance of sport versus commercial interests can no longer even remotely be considered a balance. For all that I still love it, and with no way back and no way to turn the clock back see little point in yearning for the old days. Nostalgia is fine, but ultimately fruitless. Cheers! John

> From an earlier post, the quote is lifted ad nauseam from the > Autosport of 21st October 1999, page 6, column 3, paragraph 7. Well, there's the rub then..., the Autosport "quote" is an amalgam (clearly, as I've just learned from reading each and every one of the 130 consecutive Autosport on-line articles from id=2661 [09-10-99] to id=2791 [09-19-99]) inclusive: the quote appears -- as at Atlas F1, F1-UK, F1News, and several other sites -- as two or more separate quotes, and NEVER ONCE, prior to Autosport's print issue, dated 5 days after the Sepang race and Ferrari's DQ, completely connected in the way presented in Autosport's print issue, nor -- NOT ONCE --in the context of Irvine speaking of the barge boards, or of anything other than a general, unspecified improvement of the car from Luxembourg on. I have insituted an inquiry with Autosport's editor as to the context, source, generation, and authenticity of this print issue quote, and expect an answer within the week. Again, it's the same old story of all historiography: those writing after the fact tend to condense, combine, and embellish -- in a way that enhances the impact of their story, but misrepresents the chronological truth of events. While this may seem mere hogwash and nitpicking to some or most here, this is a very important issue in a sport that is largely perceived and propelled through the medium of the motorsports press, and in present-day motorsports, especially F1, there is no journal more respected for its accuracy than Autosport. If they have editorialized where they should have been reporting, they have performed a grave disservice, not only to their readers, but to the sport. Bart Brown

Barton Spencer Brown wrote Though it was a British company sponsoring a British car. I always associated a degree of national pride with the JPS Lotus - something lost with the Camel (RJ Reynolds) sponsorship. Very different to the modern day duo branded BAR - designed to appeal to as many world markets as possible by a multi-national organisation. The JPS Lotus looked a darn sight better too IMHO. Tony

I believe that in the "past", Autosport stood at the pinnacle of F1 journalism, however, in the last couple of years they have sunk to the same level of the sensationalist, tabloid style press only equaled by the Weekly World News or the National Enquirer. don [|]-(_)-[|] <snip> While this may seem mere hogwash and nitpicking to some or most here,

John Wallace schrieb: Well, the nonsense EI uttered during the last couple of weeks certainly didn't improve my oppinion of him... l8er ronny -- The box said "Windows 95 or better", so I installed LINUX! |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

John Wallace schrieb:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:10:29 +0200, Ronald Stoehr > >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?

This has to be utter nonesene, or I lost my English... You're saying, that Minardi engineer is a dummy? Oh, now nobody is able to determine if this modified board makes a diff?? They design the cars (or planes, or trains) by throwing the dices, yes? I give up... Hopefully not. -- The box said "Windows 95 or better", so I installed LINUX! |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 18:52:57 +0200, Ronald Stoehr >This has to be utter nonesene, or I lost my English... >You're saying, that Minardi engineer is a dummy? You lost your English and no. Please read it again. He may be the Einstein of aerodynamics (although why he would be working at Minardi is then a bit of a mystery) but Eddie knows, has been told and has experienced the car, the decisions and the difference. The Minardi engineer is drawing conclusions from his back-of-the-grid car and fleeting glimpses of a covered car in the pit-lane. NOT very convincing m'lud. Eh? Where do die come in? The car was ILLEGAL as defined by the FIA, the meeting stewards and by Ferrari - whether or not it was an advantage is irrelevant and an irrelevancy that in any case we cannot measure. That was my point. Nothing to do with designing the car by Snakes and Ladders. Cheers! John

Yeah just try getting autosport to inform their uk readers that they can avoid itv advert breaks by tuning to rtl... it doesnt happen cos theyre in bed with itv... jv -- > I believe that in the "past", Autosport stood at the pinnacle of F1 > journalism, however, in the last couple of years they have sunk to the same > level of the sensationalist, tabloid style press only equaled by the Weekly > World News or the National Enquirer. > don > [|]-(_)-[|] > <snip> > While this may seem mere hogwash and nitpicking to some or most here, > >this is a very important issue in a sport that is largely perceived and > >propelled through the medium of the motorsports press, and in > >present-day motorsports, especially F1, there is no journal more > >respected for its accuracy than Autosport. If they have editorialized > >where they should have been reporting, they have performed a grave > >disservice, not only to their readers, but to the sport. > >Bart Brown

> The car was ILLEGAL as defined by the FIA, the meeting stewards and by Ferrari... No, John, it was not. BB

On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 16:48:52 -0500, Barton Spencer Brown >> 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.

On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 08:43:44 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" >Nothing _needs_ to arise as a replacement. If F1 has declined then it is no >longer the pinnacle and just falls into the general topography that is >commercialised and manufactured "sport". Just as nothing is perfect, nothing is perfectly level - SOMETHING is always best. The vast majority of indexes to which you can refer will place F1 at the top of the pile, ergo it is still the world's premier form of motorsport. Cheers! John

On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 08:51:02 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell"

Quoted text (11 lines)

>(snip) >"Nostalgia is fine, but ultimately fruitless". >(unsnip) >If you would just like to spread that message out to those whackos amongst >us who want to do things like save rain forests, plant more trees, reduce >hydrocarbon emmissions, rid the waterways of plastic bags....you know, all >those yukky things that have happened and continue to happen to this planet? >Tell them that it's no good being nostalgic about what the environment was >like 40, 50, 60 years ago. Make it your lifes work, John. Oh....but don't >get nostalgic on the way, will you? :o)

Ah nostalgia, "a fond remembrance of an earlier time in one's life". You sit at home and fondly remember those trees, see how many of them get saved by doing that. It's ultimately fruitless. The odd action or two will save infinitely more trees than nostalgia ever will. Cheers! John

The unbelievable stupidity of the tree huggers becomes manifest when you realize that "Environment" is a completely subjective issue on both sides of the coin. (The Luddite-like fanaticism of the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and the rest of its ilk on one side insist on treating humanity as if we aren't part of nature, and on the other side of the coin is the rest of the us on the planet who continue to blithely keep sh%$#ing where we live.). There seems to be no reason on either side. There is nothing wrong with the environment that about 3 billion less humans wouldn't cure, but then that would mean for humanity to exercise a collective process of thought. Very unlikely. We spend all of our time at the same time doing everything we can to both increase the population and destroy the resources we need to maintain a livable planetary surface. The inescapable, objective fact of the matter is that the planet could care less what we do to it. It'll survive long after we've created a sludge covered ball in space populated with nothing but microbes.

Quoted text (62 lines)

> (snip) > "Nostalgia is fine, but ultimately fruitless". > (unsnip) > If you would just like to spread that message out to those whackos amongst > us who want to do things like save rain forests, plant more trees, reduce > hydrocarbon emmissions, rid the waterways of plastic bags....you know, all > those yukky things that have happened and continue to happen to this planet? > Tell them that it's no good being nostalgic about what the environment was > like 40, 50, 60 years ago. Make it your lifes work, John. Oh....but don't > get nostalgic on the way, will you? :o) > > On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 09:41:00 -0500, Barton Spencer Brown > > >I'm more curious than ever, now: while I've found the Irvine quote that > > >begins "An all Ferrari front row is not bad for tomorrow. The car is > > >pretty much the same as before the Nurburgring..." several times > > >(including Autosport), I still haven't found the all-important > > >contextual prolegomenon that you've quoted above. If you have the > > >Autosport issue (paper mag) or E-zine quote at hand, please let me know > > >the date of (better yet, a hypertext link to) the quote. I've been > > >through every online archived story from the Sepang weekend at > > >Autosport's site, and I just can't find it. I'd truly appreciate help in > > >solving this mystery, moot point though it may seem to some...I'm > > >keeping a chronicle of this season, and I hate to miss a direct quote as > > >important as this. > > From an earlier post, the quote is lifted ad nauseam from the > > Autosport of 21st October 1999, page 6, column 3, paragraph 7. > > >Speaking of moot points, did anyone seriously expect the FIA to rule > > >otherwise? The F1 Drivers' and Manufacturers' championships are a > > >business, not a sport -- though I still believe that on the track and in > > >the pits, it's very much a sport for the drivers, engineers, and > > >mechanics. > > No, I fully expected Ferrari's points to be reinstated and so perhaps, > > with hindsight, my recent posts have been as a result of getting angry > > in advance and hence quite acerbic. My apologies for that being the > > case! > > I lost faith with F1 for their ineptitude over the treatment of Senna > > in 1989 and early into 1990, and watched incredulous at Senna's manner > > of winning the 1990 championship going unpunished. Since then the > > racing has been as good as the rules have allowed, but the balance of > > sport versus commercial interests can no longer even remotely be > > considered a balance. > > For all that I still love it, and with no way back and no way to turn > > the clock back see little point in yearning for the old days. > > Nostalgia is fine, but ultimately fruitless. > > Cheers! > > John > -----------== 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 ==-----

-- Bob Curtin Worcester Area Strategy & Tactics Exchange http://www.tiac.net/users/ten10ths/ "If God had intended men to join the Army he would have given us green, baggy skin"

No need to be sorry -- John Player's Navy Cut were (still are!) the British equivalent of unfiltered Camels, only more so -- very rough cut and harsh tobacco. When they went upscale with the John Player's Specials (smooth-cut ***ia in a slimmer, cork-tipped filter), they introduced a new cigarette box livery concurrently with the new livery on the Lotus 72s: the familiar intertwined "JPS" in gold on a black field (I still have an unopened box I bought at Mosport in 1973 -- bet they're good now!). Did you ever see the red, white and gold liveried John Player Lotus 47 -- the twin-cam Lotus Europa in endurance racing trim with big mongo fender flares? I think it only ran one or two years -- I saw one at the '68 or '69 Glen Six Hour...very handsome. I think I have a picture of it kicking around somewhere. BB

(snip) the world's premier racing series (unsnip) Pshaw! It hasn't been fit to carry that classification since Ecclestone sold Brabham in order to concentrate fully on FOCA!!

Quoted text (14 lines)

> >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? > Good luck to Eddie and Mika, but the whole thing utterly reeks of > incompetence and is a shoddy way to run the world's premier racing > series far less to win it. > Cheers! > John

-----------== 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 ==-----

Well, if not a surgeon, you're a writer....or should be. Nice piece, Bart. One very minor point....Lotus became "Gold Leaf" before they became "John Player". I think the gloss started to dull when they became the former. BK

Quoted text (64 lines)

> > From Autosport.... > "The barge boards at the centre of the dispute were first run at last > month's European GP, and have been kept covered at every opportunity. > Before Sunday's race, Eddie Irvine said that they had significantly > improved performance....[insert previous quotation here]" > I'm more curious than ever, now: while I've found the Irvine quote that > begins "An all Ferrari front row is not bad for tomorrow. The car is > pretty much the same as before the Nurburgring..." several times > (including Autosport), I still haven't found the all-important > contextual prolegomenon that you've quoted above. If you have the > Autosport issue (paper mag) or E-zine quote at hand, please let me know > the date of (better yet, a hypertext link to) the quote. I've been > through every online archived story from the Sepang weekend at > Autosport's site, and I just can't find it. I'd truly appreciate help in > solving this mystery, moot point though it may seem to some...I'm > keeping a chronicle of this season, and I hate to miss a direct quote as > important as this. > Speaking of moot points, did anyone seriously expect the FIA to rule > otherwise? The F1 Drivers' and Manufacturers' championships are a > business, not a sport -- though I still believe that on the track and in > the pits, it's very much a sport for the drivers, engineers, and > mechanics. On the track, the racing is real; it's the Championships that > are manufactured and manipulated. Stirling Moss had a very interesting > thing to say about the subject of his one-point miss of the 1958 > Championship in his book with Ken Purdy: [my rough paraphrase] "If I was > leading the race that would win me the championship today -- far in the > lead, car going like a bomb, tires and oil to burn -- do you know what > I'd do? On the last turn of the last lap, I'd pull over, park the car > under a tree, pull of my helmet, and watch the end of the race. Why? > What would winning one championship mean? Mike Hawthorn won a World > Championship; did that make Mike a better driver than I am? I liked > Mike, he was a wonderful chap, and when he was "on" he was very good. > But Mike had a lot of "off" days, and when he was off, well...if Mike > was a couple laps behind, he just gave it up. If I won five > Championships, would that make me as good a driver as Fangio? Not on > your life: I always felt I was better in sports cars than Fangio; he > just didn't like them -- but in a GP car, he was the best, in my day. If > I won the Championship TEN times it wouldn't have made me as GOOD a > driver as Fangio." > The last decade or so of F1 has seemed to me to have artificially > blurred the drivers' side of the racing equation, Enzo Ferrari's 'ratio > of car to driver." In Moss' era, and to a lesser extent on into the '60s > and '70s, the good drivers picked the cars, not the other way around. > Moss won GP races in Vanwalls, Maseratis, Mercedes, and Loti. Fangio in > Ferraris, Mercedes, and Maseratis. Except for the Italian drivers, for > whom driving for Ferrari was the Holy Grail, the good drivers who could > afford to pick and choose picked the best, whatever they were; the rest > got what was left over. When teams started getting the commercial > wherewithal to fund an arms race, part of that arms race was buying the > best drivers -- the relationship between manufacturers and drivers had > changed, quietly but fundamentally. It changed even further in the > Cosworth kitcar -- or, in Ferrari's pungent phrase, "garagiste" -- era, > when there was less and less "manufacturer" identity, that role > gravitating more toward the commercial entities -- tobacco companies and > the like -- that provided the money. As has been cited many times, when > Lotus gave up its name to become "John Player's Specials," a fundamental > cog in the cosmos of F1 racing moved quite significantly. It has never > moved back, though with the trend toward nationalism and "manufacturer" > identity seen in the Stewart-Ford/Jaguar and "More Mercedes, Less > McLaren" prospects for 2000, even THAT pendulum may be on a sort of

backswing.

Quoted text (24 lines)

> So that leaves the drivers: the hired guns, loyal to none. Their world > is, of necessity, different from that of the manufacturers': they > maneuver for the best salaries, yes. They play the near-NASCAR game of > "well, my Marlboro/Nokia/Tampax/Grecian Formula/Arrows was running > pretty well...", yes. But just like In NASCAR, or anywhere where men and > women have endured the many hardships required to get to the top of any > motorports series, in the end they race. If you took Michael and Mika > and Eddie and DC and the entire F1 field of drivers and dropped them > into NASCAR sedans, likewise took Dale and Dale and Jeff and Bobby and > the entire field of Winston Cup and dropped them into F1 cars, they > would race...it might not be pretty, but every one of them would give it > all they had within themselves to give. That's why we still watch -- > after all the Byzantine politics, commercial maneuvering, internecine > power plays, and just plain bullshit, these people race. Drop Moss in > the middle of them, and he'd race, too -- anyone who caught this year's > Monterey Historics would have to -- however bitterly -- agree to that. > These men and women who strap themselves in and have a go, a *real* go, > are special: they represent us; the level of commitment, skill, and > dedication that we all, as humans, strive for, but rarely have the > chance to demonstrate in such a simple, direct, and unequivocal way. > Unlike most sports, the drivers perform alone, as we, in our deepest > hearts, perform alone. They skirt the edge of danger which we -- > civilized, coddled, and compartmentalized -- rarely, if ever, confront. > That we live vicariously through them is trite, yet completely true.

-----------== 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 ==-----

Nothing _needs_ to arise as a replacement. If F1 has declined then it is no longer the pinnacle and just falls into the general topography that is commercialised and manufactured "sport". I don't even consider it to be the pinnacle of motoring _entertainment_!

Quoted text (14 lines)

> On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 00:03:19 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" > >Pshaw! It hasn't been fit to carry that classification since Ecclestone > >sold Brabham in order to concentrate fully on FOCA!! > It may not have been fit to, but as much as it has declined nothing > else has risen to replace it. How could any sport (other than > football) have competed on world terms with the 1988-1990 F1 series > involving the Senna/Prost cauldron with bit parts also for Mansell, > Piquet etc? > Cheers! > John

-----------== 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 ==-----

Sorry! I did realise that JP were the "owner" in both cases, just that when I see "John Player" I also see the black and 'gold' (actually a buff colour!) livery. "Gold Leaf" immediately pops up the red, gold and white Lotus 49s which I saw here in the 1968 Tasman series. BK

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Right you are, Bruce: John Player's Gold Leaf Navy Cut "Racing For > Britain" Lotus -- a title worthy of NASCAR! > BB > > Well, if not a surgeon, you're a writer....or should be. > > Nice piece, Bart. One very minor point....Lotus became "Gold Leaf"

before > > they became "John Player". I think the gloss started to dull when they > > became the former. > > BK -----------== 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 ==-----

(snip) "Nostalgia is fine, but ultimately fruitless". (unsnip) If you would just like to spread that message out to those whackos amongst us who want to do things like save rain forests, plant more trees, reduce hydrocarbon emmissions, rid the waterways of plastic bags....you know, all those yukky things that have happened and continue to happen to this planet? Tell them that it's no good being nostalgic about what the environment was like 40, 50, 60 years ago. Make it your lifes work, John. Oh....but don't get nostalgic on the way, will you? :o)

Quoted text (43 lines)

> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 09:41:00 -0500, Barton Spencer Brown > >I'm more curious than ever, now: while I've found the Irvine quote that > >begins "An all Ferrari front row is not bad for tomorrow. The car is > >pretty much the same as before the Nurburgring..." several times > >(including Autosport), I still haven't found the all-important > >contextual prolegomenon that you've quoted above. If you have the > >Autosport issue (paper mag) or E-zine quote at hand, please let me know > >the date of (better yet, a hypertext link to) the quote. I've been > >through every online archived story from the Sepang weekend at > >Autosport's site, and I just can't find it. I'd truly appreciate help in > >solving this mystery, moot point though it may seem to some...I'm > >keeping a chronicle of this season, and I hate to miss a direct quote as > >important as this. > From an earlier post, the quote is lifted ad nauseam from the > Autosport of 21st October 1999, page 6, column 3, paragraph 7. > >Speaking of moot points, did anyone seriously expect the FIA to rule > >otherwise? The F1 Drivers' and Manufacturers' championships are a > >business, not a sport -- though I still believe that on the track and in > >the pits, it's very much a sport for the drivers, engineers, and > >mechanics. > No, I fully expected Ferrari's points to be reinstated and so perhaps, > with hindsight, my recent posts have been as a result of getting angry > in advance and hence quite acerbic. My apologies for that being the > case! > I lost faith with F1 for their ineptitude over the treatment of Senna > in 1989 and early into 1990, and watched incredulous at Senna's manner > of winning the 1990 championship going unpunished. Since then the > racing has been as good as the rules have allowed, but the balance of > sport versus commercial interests can no longer even remotely be > considered a balance. > For all that I still love it, and with no way back and no way to turn > the clock back see little point in yearning for the old days. > Nostalgia is fine, but ultimately fruitless. > Cheers! > John

-----------== 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 ==-----

And the thread itself is even completely off-topic! Wow! Andre On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 14:49:55 GMT, "The_Mocker"

Quoted text (8 lines)

>This thread has just set a record for length. While the topic has wandered, >it is still the longest continuous thread to be posted her. Let's give this >thread a hand. It beat the previous longest tread, "Your Mother!" by over 15 >replies, and is still going. >Wow. >The Mocker

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, followed by a hearing (by 15 judges, BTW) to decide whether or not the appeal would be upheld. 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: no technical director, team manager, or lowliest gopher would ever publicly say any part of the car was "illegal" and still keep his job -- it makes no more sense than the quote Autosport has attributed to Eddie Irvine saying before the race at Sepang that the Ferrari's new-found performance advantage was due to the barge boards. But all this is a circular argument -- you dislike Ferrari, and you dislike F1 -- you're entitled to your bias. Bottom line here is that it was a chicken-shit DQ. Several teams and engineers (including Adrian Newey) have said they'd noticed the barge-board discrepancy since the beginning of the race weekend at the Nrburgring, but nobody felt it was significant enough to even mention. Obviously *somebody* changed their mind about that when the Ferraris both passed post-race scrutineering in Malaysia, and tipped off Jo Bauer. Will we ever know who that someone was? Yes, post-season. Does it matter? No, no more than the piddly-ass discrepancy in the barge boards. What I've been trying to argue is that it's the racing that matters. You don't agree. Fine. The man who is most directly affected does, however. Immediately in the wake of the Ferrari DQ, when everyone was convinced that it was all over and McLaren had won the championship, Mika Hakkinen had *his* say: << 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. BB ---------------------------------------------------------------------- <<According to Ferrari technical director Ross Brawn, a manufacturing error had left the outward facing lip on each barge board with a 10 millimetre discrepancy at one end. For this they were provisionally disqualified pending an appeal hearing before the governing body in Paris on the 22nd October.>> <<Todt and Brawn comment on disqualification October 18: Jean Todt and Ross Brawn have launched an appeal against the exclusion of both Ferraris from yesterday's Malaysian Grand Prix at Sepang. "The car was in exactly the same technical shape as it was in the last Grand Prix at the Nrburgring, Germany, and this car has been scrutinised every day here." Ferrari technical director Ross Brawn claimed that the illegal barge boards had not given the team a real advantage: "The parts were used at Nrburgring. We are sure there was no performance benefit," he said.>>

> There is nothing wrong with the environment that about 3 billion less humans > wouldn't cure, but then that would mean for humanity to exercise a collective > process of thought. Very unlikely. We spend all of our time at the same time doing > everything we can to both increase the population and destroy the resources we need > to maintain a livable planetary surface. Yo, Bob! You don't happen to be a big Tom Clancy fan, do you? I agree with Buckminster Fuller: the resources are there, they're just in the wrong place. BB

Quoted text (11 lines)

>On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 16:48:52 -0500, Barton Spencer Brown >>> 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 :-) -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

>On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 08:43:44 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" >>Nothing _needs_ to arise as a replacement. If F1 has declined then it is no

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>longer the pinnacle and just falls into the general topography that is >>commercialised and manufactured "sport". >Just as nothing is perfect, nothing is perfectly level - SOMETHING is >always best. The vast majority of indexes to which you can refer will >place F1 at the top of the pile, ergo it is still the world's premier >form of motorsport.

As evidenced by Alex Zanardi's sparkling performance this year. I'm embarrassed for cart :-0 -- 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, followed by a hearing (by 15 >judges, BTW) to decide whether or not the appeal would be upheld. 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 According the www.dailyf1.com, ferrarri did admit they were illegal. I believe they even said J. Todt agreed. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

>intention of cheating. You may think it's a matter of semantics, but it >is simply a matter of sense: no technical director, team manager, or >lowliest gopher would ever publicly say any part of the car was >"illegal" and still keep his job -- it makes no more sense than the J. Todt was rumored to resign (according to www.dailyf1.com). I agree with the chicken shit DQ. Mclaren got their ass kicked. They could have sown up the title races ago. Instead Mika is crying behind the bushes at Monza! WTF! It was considered significant once Ferrarri finished 1-2 at Malaysia... ...the tipoff came from Mclaren according to www.dailyf1.com. I do believe the cars should be within specs. Otherwise where does it end? Mclaren should try barge boards that are 12 MM out of tolerance. Surely they will not be penalized. Oh wait... FIA may have accurate measuring devices be then. IMHO that is chickenshit. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

Not in everyones opinion, it aint! "Premier" technologically, certainly. "Premier form of motor-sport".....uh-uh! -----------== 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 ==-----

As I said....don't let nostalgia get in your way, John. Onwards and upwards, always.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 08:51:02 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" > >(snip) > >"Nostalgia is fine, but ultimately fruitless". > >(unsnip) > >If you would just like to spread that message out to those whackos

amongst > >us who want to do things like save rain forests, plant more trees, reduce > >hydrocarbon emmissions, rid the waterways of plastic bags....you know, all > >those yukky things that have happened and continue to happen to this planet? > >Tell them that it's no good being nostalgic about what the environment was > >like 40, 50, 60 years ago. Make it your lifes work, John. Oh....but don't

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >get nostalgic on the way, will you? :o) > Ah nostalgia, "a fond remembrance of an earlier time in one's life". > You sit at home and fondly remember those trees, see how many of them > get saved by doing that. It's ultimately fruitless. > The odd action or two will save infinitely more trees than nostalgia > ever will. > Cheers! > John

-----------== 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 ==-----

Sure thing, Bob. I'll tell that to my kids, shall I? -----------== 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 used to smoke 'em! Then went on to Chesterfields (plains) and a zillion other brands before giving up last year. But that's another story! 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.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 00:00:30 -0500, Barton Spencer Brown >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. "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 :-)

On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 16:57:39 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" >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

story! Hehe. do you have the appendix in a jar by any chance Bruce ;-) Mark

Quoted text (7 lines)

>If you would just like to spread that message out to those whackos amongst >us who want to do things like save rain forests, plant more trees, reduce >hydrocarbon emmissions, rid the waterways of plastic bags....you know, all >those yukky things that have happened and continue to happen to this planet? >Tell them that it's no good being nostalgic about what the environment was >like 40, 50, 60 years ago. Make it your lifes work, John. Oh....but don't >get nostalgic on the way, will you? :o)

Remember, facing the fact that you're a whacko is the first step toward recovery. Don McCorkle

> ........ You keep saying that Ross Brawn "admitted" that the vanes were > "illegal," but that is simply not the case -- and I defy...... Brawn said > that the vanes were out of spec, but they gave no performance advantage, he > did not say they were "illegal," 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. Disgusting, the way F1 made a mockery of their own rules! At the very *least*, Ferrari should have lost their Manufacturers points. -- 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!

Quoted text (18 lines)

> >On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 16:48:52 -0500, Barton Spencer Brown > >>> 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 :-)

More like a pretty lame excuse in order to overturn a correct ruling. Guess they had to come up with SOMETHING...................... -- 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!

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. 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 >On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 00:00:30 -0500, Barton Spencer Brown >>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 :-)

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 fia.com, autosport.com, indyf1.com, ferrari.it, mclaren.co.uk, formula-one.net, westonline.com, atlasf1.com, formula1.com, f1-update.com, Ten-Tenths.com, formula-1.co.uk, galeforcef1.com, f1andmore.com, goracing.com, racewire.com, cmysys.com [Malaysiam Motorsports], worldmotorsport.com) -- there *is* a difference. Just as every motorsports news story used the term "disqualified" -- you're only disqualified if you do not, within one hour of the stewards ruling, lodge a formal appeal. Once the formal appeal is lodged, what you have is a "provisional disqualification" (see FIA rulebook), followed by a hearing to either uphold or deny the appeal. ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- 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.

On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 09:06:42 -0500, "Greg Cisko"

Quoted text (8 lines)

>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? Cheers! John

> There was no "provincial disqualification", they were _disqualified_. > It becomes provincial only when Ferrari appeal... Well, for the record, the word is "provisional," although "provincial" is an excellent adjective to describe the motivations behind the whole thing. And I'm sorry, but if you check the FIA rulebook (I had to...), the rule is this: a technical (or other possibly disqualifying or actionable) infringement is reported to the race organizers and the possibly infringing team by whichever steward has jurisdiction over the infringement in question. The "accused" team then has one hour from the time of the notification of opinion of infringement (see Jo Bauer's original parc ferm statement regarding his "opinion") to lodge an appeal. If the team doesn't lodge an appeal within the allotted one hour, it's a disqualification, or whatever other sentence has been "opined" by the steward. If the appeal *is* lodged, then the possibly infringing team is under "provisional disqualification" until their appeal is either denied, or a hearing is held to uphold or refuse the appeal. Look it up... 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. Please -- if you have the patience -- reread some of the other posts. Simply put, Jo Bauer offered his opinion (sigh...see his original statement) that the vanes were in an "out-of-spec" configuration. Ferrari agreed, after the measurements were taken at Sepang, that they were out of spec, but lodged an appeal. Roughly as in our own judicial system, you have only done something illegal if A) you accept the initial opinion and don't appeal on some other grounds, or B) you appeal the initial opinion, but the final court of appeals rules against you -- ya know? Trial by jury? 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

On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 12:20:16 +0000, Barton Spencer Brown >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. Yes you do - it's five. I told you. Three times. If you are unable to admit you're wrong on something as glaringly obvious to yourself and everyone else with eyes, what value discussion? No, facts are things like the number of judges at an appeal, but even that seems open to question. John

Fair enough. My opinion differs. But then that's okay because that's what democracy and freedom is all about. Aah! Some days it's just so good to be alive!!

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 16:57:39 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" > >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

-----------== 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 ==-----

NO WAY!!! I'm not *that* nostalgic!!! LOL!! -----------== 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 ==-----

LOL!! :o) I've faced that fact since I turned eighty-two, Woodie!! When you get to my age you worry little about what others might think of you, anyway. > Remember, facing the fact that you're a whacko is the first step toward > recovery. > Don McCorkle -----------== 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 ==-----

Quoted text (19 lines)

>On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 09:06:42 -0500, "Greg Cisko" >>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?

And besides, it wouldn't be illegal, just out of spec! Well, until the Board of Appeal was able to make a ruling on whether there was any advantage to be gained. <g> -- Peter Ives

End of discussion. You're absolutely right John: you're endowed with such a superior intellect that you know what I know better than I do, and your opinion is so infallible as to constitute pure, unarguable fact. Is that satisfying enough for your ego? I hope so, it's simply the best I can do...unless you know better, of course. 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

: On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:10:29 +0200, Ronald Stoehr :>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

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. Just my humble.... Tony

On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:16:54 +0100, "Tony Rickard"

Quoted text (8 lines)

>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! Cheers! John

Quoted text (17 lines)

> 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!

Well, FWIW, I'm glad you guys didn't, there's precious few ppl on the usenet who knows how to discuss a topic in length without resorting to name calling, and you guys kept it (the discussion, nothing else :-) for quite some time, it got a little "slow" there at the end, but I quite enjoyed it, OT and all :-) 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 I'm sorry, but if they are out of spec, they are illegal whether Todt or Brawn used the word or not. e.g. If a team were to use real slicks; that be out of spec and illegal... Is there something about the concept which you cannot understand? -- 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... OK, last time (really!): The tech steward Jo Bauer made an "opinion" (see his direct quote elsewhere), based upon measurements made at parc ferm in Sepang, with the tools and reference planes he had available to him there. If Ferrari didn't appeal the opinion within an hour of its being made, the opinion THEN -- and ONLY then -- becomes accepted as a reason for disqualification from the results. Ferrari made their appeal, thus maintaining Bauer's opinion as "opinion," to be settled by the appeals board, one way or another. If the appeals board ultimately disallowed Ferrari's appeal, Bauer's original opinion THEN -- and ONLY then -- becomes accepted as a reason for disqualification from the results. It's a process, designed to protect EVERYONE involved -- remember McLaren's purported "launch control" software code of a few years ago? Same deal. If ANY F1 steward could arbitrarily and irrevocably rule a car "illegal" by reason of a rules infraction, with no avenue of appeal, F1 would be 100 times (an estimate...) more chaotic than it is presently. 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

In a round about sort of way this was a compliment John (& Barton). I would have no intention of killing the thread. I was just chuckling to myself at the fact both of you seemed to consider it was time to end it - just neither of you could. It made a refreshing change from the more common Usenet slagging match! Tony John Wallace wrote

On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 19:11:42 +0100, "Tony Rickard" >In a round about sort of way this was a compliment John (& Barton). >I would have no intention of killing the thread. >I was just chuckling to myself at the fact both of you seemed to consider it >was time to end it - just neither of you could. Oh I dunno - Barton said he wanted to end it, I'm happy to discuss as long as it's civil and time doesn't conspire against me. Cheers! John

Well, I enjoy yakking about it, so here goes: if you liked the prologue, you'll *love* the denoument. I've double-asterisked (**) my favorite passages from the Reuters report of its interview with Ron Dennis, but here's my all time favorite of the bunch, from Max Mosley: "Ferrari accepted the measurements as they were presented in Malaysia AS THEY COULD NOT PROVE THERE THAT THE TURNING VANE WAS NOT ILLEGAL." 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."

Here's more F1 merriment from AtlasF1 news service. By all means, draw your own conclusions -- far be it from me to present my own opinion as anything but pure banana oil: --------------------------------------------------- Bauer Admits Mistake [so much for the infallibility of the FIA's tech people AND measuring equipment -- BB] Saturday October 23rd, 1999 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.

On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:30:19 +0000, Barton Spencer Brown >results. It's a process, designed to protect EVERYONE involved -- >remember McLaren's purported "launch control" software code of a few >years ago? This isn't meant to nit-pick at a long and good explanation, but I just wanted to pick up on this one point that I remembered differently - wasn't that Benetton's launch control software, principally Schumi's (with Brawn & Byrne)? Cheers! John

> - wasn't that Benetton's launch control software, principally Schumi's > (with Brawn & Byrne)? Most probably -- my memory ain't so good. McLaren must have done *something* *** in the recent past (besides making pious pontifications about a "fair fight" in Malaysia and then slipping the greasy bird to Jo Bauer, I mean...). Somebody help me hear... BB

Bauer hasn't spoken or made any admission since Sepang, AFAIK. And Atlas is pro-Ferrari. It's Max who made the statement, favouring the training-wheel assisted Maranello world champions. ;-) -Mike Wells

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Here's more F1 merriment from AtlasF1 news service. By all means, draw > > your own conclusions -- far be it from me to present my own opinion as > > anything but pure banana oil: > > --------------------------------------------------- > > Bauer Admits Mistake [so much for the infallibility of the FIA's tech > > people AND measuring equipment -- BB] > > Saturday October 23rd, 1999 > Bauer hasn't spoken or made any admission since Sepang, AFAIK. And Atlas is > pro-Ferrari.

I have heard that Bauer has ruled favourably to Mercedes teamed cars in the past. Would this have anything to do with it?

On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:50:48 +0000, Barton Spencer Brown >Most probably -- my memory ain't so good. McLaren must have done >*something* *** in the recent past (besides making pious >pontifications about a "fair fight" in Malaysia and then slipping the >greasy bird to Jo Bauer, I mean...). Call me cynical, but I'd be surprised if anyone who could afford to be "up to something" wasn't "up to something". Thou shalt not get caught is the phrase that springs to mind. Cotton bud? (Sorry, couldn't resist...) :-) Cheers! John

Call me cynical, but I'd be surprised if anyone who could afford to be John-- The phrase that most immediately popped into my noggin when all this buzhwa came down was my favorite JFK quote: "Where there's smoke, there's usually a smoke-making machine." <<Call me cynical, but I'd be surprised if anyone who could afford to be "up to something" wasn't "up to something">> Hmmmm....well, that would have to include everyone in F1 with the possible exceptions of Arrows and Minardi... BB

> > I'm sorry, but if they are out of spec, they are illegal... > OK, last time (really!): The tech steward Jo Bauer made an "opinion" <Windbag reply deleted to save space> Wow that was some epistle! However just because a Kangaroo Court let Ferrari off does not make it legal (remember OJ). They never said the barge boards were within spec, they said that their instruments were not capable of an accurate measurement, and the barge boards were within the 5mm error. I find this excuse totally absurd. However... I say that is all behind us, and Mclaren and Ferrari will settle it in about 48 hours :-) -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 22:55:57 -0500, "Greg Cisko" >Wow that was some epistle! However just because a Kangaroo Court >let Ferrari off does not make it legal (remember OJ). They never said >the barge boards were within spec, they said that their instruments were >not capable of an accurate measurement, and the barge boards were >within the 5mm error. You can definitely understand Ron Dennis' frustration - the board, which was out by 10mm and illegal, suddenly becomes in-spec, and the blame placed on a machine which is incapable of measuring accurately enough. A machine that is two years old, laser-caibrated and costing millions of dollars. Now in my desk at the office I keep a 10 year old clear plastic JALCARGO ruler that I use every day, which has been used to open envelopes, throw at people, flick off the desk when thinking etc. With that ruler I can resolve a measurement to the nearest millimetre, and that is when the measurement is relatively meaningless. You have to think that even if I was going to use that ruler to disqualify a world-famous team from a world-famous event on which they have spent one hundred million dollars or so....I'd be pretty careful about my measurements? Maybe measure a couple of times, check the calibration, maybe spring out the old plastic ruler and just make a triple check? Still, as you say that's history, and the FIA(t) have overruled and the money train rolls on to Suzuka. I can guarantee that this will be only the second Grand Prix I haven't watched in 10 years, and I'm equally sure that the FIA won't give a damn. Still, it's my small protest at such open flouting of their own rules, and of ridiculing the sport for the love of money. Cheers! John

Well that settles it. I would never think of not watching the race. So I guess you are more *** about F1 than I am :-) -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

> Wow that was some epistle! However just because a Kangaroo Court > let Ferrari off does not make it legal Greg, do you suffer from some unfortunate learning disability, or is it simply an emotional problem? There *are* treatments for both, and I hope you'll look into getting some help for yourself. There is no "legal" or "illegal" in the context of the rules of a private club -- you're trying to apply democratic nation/state judicial concepts to a system that simply does not operate that way. If you can't take the time to read the pertinent documents and understand the difference, then please don't waste *my* time or the NGs bandwidth with your pointless repitition of entirely superfluous drivel, OK? Really, you need some professional counseling... BB

Who was it that said sometimes a cigar is just a cigar?

Quoted text (35 lines)

> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 22:55:57 -0500, "Greg Cisko" > >Wow that was some epistle! However just because a Kangaroo Court > >let Ferrari off does not make it legal (remember OJ). They never said > >the barge boards were within spec, they said that their instruments were > >not capable of an accurate measurement, and the barge boards were > >within the 5mm error. > You can definitely understand Ron Dennis' frustration - the board, > which was out by 10mm and illegal, suddenly becomes in-spec, and the > blame placed on a machine which is incapable of measuring accurately > enough. A machine that is two years old, laser-caibrated and costing > millions of dollars. > Now in my desk at the office I keep a 10 year old clear plastic > JALCARGO ruler that I use every day, which has been used to open > envelopes, throw at people, flick off the desk when thinking etc. With > that ruler I can resolve a measurement to the nearest millimetre, and > that is when the measurement is relatively meaningless. You have to > think that even if I was going to use that ruler to disqualify a > world-famous team from a world-famous event on which they have spent > one hundred million dollars or so....I'd be pretty careful about my > measurements? Maybe measure a couple of times, check the calibration, > maybe spring out the old plastic ruler and just make a triple check? > Still, as you say that's history, and the FIA(t) have overruled and > the money train rolls on to Suzuka. I can guarantee that this will be > only the second Grand Prix I haven't watched in 10 years, and I'm > equally sure that the FIA won't give a damn. Still, it's my small > protest at such open flouting of their own rules, and of ridiculing > the sport for the love of money. > Cheers! > John

> > Wow that was some epistle! However just because a Kangaroo Court > > let Ferrari off does not make it legal > Greg, do you suffer from some unfortunate learning disability, or is it Apparently. Yes. My prozac did not kick in when I posted that. Are you a lawyer??? counseling... Noted & filed... Dork. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

> Who was it that said sometimes a cigar is just a cigar? Ahhh, Monica Lewinsky? BB

> Dork. Being labeled a "dork" by Greg Cisko is the philosophical equivalent of winning the MIT Science Fair...thanks! BB

On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:55:09 -0500, "Greg Cisko" >Well that settles it. I would never think of not watching the race. So >I guess you are more *** about F1 than I am :-) Perhaps not - I cracked, and watched Mika kick butt. Nice to see Ferrari get some of their own treatment dished out for a change, although a sizable whiff that Michael wasn't all THAT committed to any cause other than constructor's championship, and who can blame him. Irv really should learn that opening one's mouth should be carefully considered prior to doing so... Cheers! John

On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:07:04 -0500, "david karr" >Who was it that said sometimes a cigar is just a cigar? It sometimes is. Sometimes. Cheers! John

Yes he did kick butt. I told spence it would be settled in 48 hours :-) I was surprised at schumachers remark about David Coulthard though. He actually had the nerve to suggest he was "racing" McLaren at the last race when he was clearly holding them up. Unbelievable. But after he tried to crash JV a few years ago in the last race (to decide the title) he has little to complain about with regards to anyone else. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com > On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:55:09 -0500, "Greg Cisko" > >Well that settles it. I would never think of not watching the race. So > >I guess you are more *** about F1 than I am :-) > Perhaps not - I cracked, and watched Mika kick butt. Nice to see > Ferrari get some of their own treatment dished out for a change, > although a sizable whiff that Michael wasn't all THAT committed to any > cause other than constructor's championship, and who can blame him. > Irv really should learn that opening one's mouth should be carefully > considered prior to doing so... > Cheers! > John

> I was surprised at schumachers remark about David >Coulthard though. He actually had the nerve to suggest he was >"racing" McLaren at the last race when he was clearly holding >them up. Unbelievable. Hmm, I do not agree here. Schumacher was on the same lap that time, DC was not. But I am certain Schumacher would have done the same.. Remco.

: I was surprised at schumachers remark about David : Coulthard though. He actually had the nerve to suggest he was : "racing" McLaren at the last race when he was clearly holding : them up. Unbelievable. Greg - this is your misunderstanding I'm afraid. Schumacher was highlighting the difference between slowing someone up while you are "racing with them". E.g. they are trying to overtake you for position and you are slowing them up to help a team-mate. This was the situation with Hakkinen in Malaysia - they were "racing for position" and schumacher was holding him up. Most people consider this an acceptable part of the team sport that is Formula One. What Schumacher was complaining about was slowing someone down while they are trying to lap you. This is, while within the rules (for a few corners anyway) unsporting in the view of most people. (Whichever team does it - some people on this group have suggested that Salo was doing the same to Ralf Schumacher in Spa - if he was then I missed it but it's a similarly bad offence). -- 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

> Yes he did kick butt. I told spence it would be settled in 48 > hours :-) Hakkinen drove a flawless race. Congratulations to Mika. In spite of his Jekyll and Hyde season, he was a more deserving champion than Eddie. When he is on his game, he is definitely one of the best. Big difference. Schumacher was holding up Hakkinen while they were fighting for position on the same lap, which is certainly his right. Coulthard was being lapped by Schumacher and closed the door on him a couple of times after being shown the blue flag. Schumacher made this distinction very clear in his comments. Coulthard's post race comments that he couldn't control his car well enough to let Schumacher by were disingenuous at best. Perhaps a valid m***argument, but not much of a legal one. More importantly - R.I.P. Greg Moore. Dave -- ***************************************************** David A. Ewing *****************************************************

Of course nobody is entitled to do such a stupid manoeuvre but Schumacher cannot have it both ways. He spends a whole race holding up Hakkinen and then ***es about DC doing the same thing in Japan. His lame reasoning for ***ing is that DC was being lapped. Maybe he should have read the rules about how many blue flags the lapped driver can pass before conceding. In both races the same thing happened. The team mates of championship contenders did all within their power to impede the progress of the rival contender, both acting within the rules. Forget honourable actions. They went out the window years ago. As long as it's in the rulebook, or even on the outer margins of the page it's ok these days! If the schu does something wrong, he has the fantastic ability of justifying his actions in his own mind words. If he is on the receiving end of similar treatment (equally unjustified as the case may be), he thinks he has the god given right to crucify the offending party. Schumacher may be the best of his generation but he is also the biggest hypocrite sitting on the grid! MS

I think the incredulity comes from the fact that Schumacher is complaining about someone being unsportsmanlike yet within the rules, whereas Michael himself tends toward unsportsmanlike behaviour well outside of the rules. In this case the pot is many shades blacker than the kettle. Cheers! John

:> What Schumacher was complaining about was slowing someone down while :>they are trying to lap you. This is, while within the rules (for a few :>corners anyway) unsporting in the view of most people. (Whichever team :>does it - some people on this group have suggested that Salo was doing :>the same to Ralf Schumacher in Spa - if he was then I missed it but it's :>a similarly bad offence). : I think the incredulity comes from the fact that Schumacher is : complaining about someone being unsportsmanlike yet within the rules, : whereas Michael himself tends toward unsportsmanlike behaviour well : outside of the rules. : In this case the pot is many shades blacker than the kettle. Very much not the point whatsoever. Even if I did agree with your statement about Schumi (which I don't entirely) that is no excuse for unsportsman like behaviour to him. That's definitely playground "well he started it" mentality. -- 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

Quoted text (8 lines)

> : I was surprised at schumachers remark about David > : Coulthard though. He actually had the nerve to suggest he was > : "racing" McLaren at the last race when he was clearly holding > : them up. Unbelievable. > Greg - this is your misunderstanding I'm afraid. Schumacher > was highlighting the difference between slowing someone up > while you are "racing with them". E.g. they are trying to overtake

No misunderstanding at all. I simply do not think Schumacher was "racing" with the Mclarens at all. Even though he was in 2nd and they were in 3rd, he was clearly purposely holding them up to let his team mate build a lead. "racing" was not part of it. IMHO. IMHO purposely holding him up is not "racing", it is being and ***. Yep they sure do. Except (apparently) when someone does it to Schumacher. Yes he was. Maybe he should also complain about the time he tried to take Jaques V, out a few years ago. IMHO he has nothing to complain about. Like I said, people only seem to complain when it happens to Schumacher :-) -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

So even if he did similar things in the past, he should not have it done to him? Is that what you are actually saying? Wow... -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

Yes I know. I thought it was unbelievable. best. I haven't seen these comments yet, and obviously this would not be correct I suspect. He was doing payback for Malaysia... Right... Especially since it is Schumacher. Completely agree with this one! -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

:> : In this case the pot is many shades blacker than the kettle. :> :> Very much not the point whatsoever. Even if I did agree with your :> statement about Schumi (which I don't entirely) that is no excuse for :> unsportsman like behaviour to him. That's definitely playground "well :> he started it" mentality. : So even if he did similar things in the past, he should not have it : done to him? Is that what you are actually saying? Yes - that is absolutely and completely what I am saying. I don't see how you can disagree with this. Schumacher punted Villeneuve off in '97. Are you seriously suggesting that, therefore, everyone's entitled to a free punt at him? Just because someone breaks the rules (once) doesn't mean that everyone else is entitled to do the same to get back at them. -- 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

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Yes - that is absolutely and completely what I am saying. I don't > see how you can disagree with this. Schumacher punted Villeneuve off in > '97. Are you seriously suggesting that, therefore, everyone's > entitled to a free punt at him? > Just because someone breaks the rules (once) doesn't mean that > everyone else is entitled to do the same to get back at them.

Couldn't let this one slip by me :-) MS hasn't done it ONCE, he does these things over and over again, he punted Damon Hill in Australia in 94, during the British GP the same year he was playing mindgames on Hill and overtook him on the pace lap, he was penalized with a stop/go, but refused to accept the black flag and stayed out (which is about the worst you can do, not respecting race control) and then the incident with JV (I'm sure I've forgotten a few things in there somewhere), I can see a pattern here, MS thinks he can do whatever he wants, but noone can do ANYTHING to him, I can even remember him being upset at Hill at Suzuka last year for not letting him past (they were fighting for position because Ferrari/MS screwed up something at the start and had to start dead last) as everyone else had done, I was LMAO and thinking, is this payback time or what :-) Personally, I think MS is about as low as you can get as a sportsman, he's one of the best F1 drivers in modern times, maybe even the best, but I have absolutely no respect for that guy, and in my opinion he deserves whatever he gets, within the rule of course :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy

:> Greg - this is your misunderstanding I'm afraid. Schumacher :> was highlighting the difference between slowing someone up :> while you are "racing with them". E.g. they are trying to overtake : No misunderstanding at all. I simply do not think Schumacher : was "racing" with the Mclarens at all. Even though he was in : 2nd and they were in 3rd, he was clearly purposely holding : them up to let his team mate build a lead. "racing" was not : part of it. IMHO. The term "racing" was used to mean situated on the track in such a way that position might be exchanged. Not to mean "I was going as fast as I can" - a lot of commentators use the word "racing" in this way. (Whether you agree with the useage of the word or not it is in common usage to mean that). :> you for position and you are slowing them up to help a team-mate. :> This was the situation with Hakkinen in Malaysia - they were :> "racing for position" and schumacher was holding him up. : IMHO purposely holding him up is not "racing", it is being and : ***. It is team tactics and F1 has been a team sport for a long long time. -- 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

:> :> Yes - that is absolutely and completely what I am saying. I don't :> see how you can disagree with this. Schumacher punted Villeneuve off in :> '97. Are you seriously suggesting that, therefore, everyone's :> entitled to a free punt at him? :> :> Just because someone breaks the rules (once) doesn't mean that :> everyone else is entitled to do the same to get back at them. : Couldn't let this one slip by me :-) : MS hasn't done it ONCE, he does these things over and over again, he : punted Damon Hill in Australia in 94, Well, that's very much open to debate - I believe '94 was a genuine accident. I may be in a minority in that belief. : during the British GP the same : year he was playing mindgames on Hill and overtook him on the pace lap, : he was penalized with a stop/go, but refused to accept the black flag : and stayed out (which is about the worst you can do, not respecting race : control) and then the incident with JV (I'm sure I've forgotten a few : things in there somewhere), I can see a pattern here, MS thinks he can : do whatever he wants, but noone can do ANYTHING to him. Well actually he was DQ'd for three races for the black flag incident that you mention. But this very much is not the place to discuss Michael Schumacher evil man/good man. I still think it is totally unacceptable even if the driver in question has cheated 100 times to say "therefore it's OK for me to cheat too" -- 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

Of course not, since the statement was made by me and Coulthard made no comment on the incident whatsoever (he naturally took objection to being slandered of course). Prior to the race he commented that with the way Ferrari had acted in Sepang he may be forced to drive in a way that he disliked, that was it. It is then pretty hypocritical of Schumacher, the man with the worst record in F1, to come out and accuse someone else of trying to kill him. Perhaps had Villeneuve, Frentzen or Hill been at the conference we may have heard a snort of derision. To then hide behind that as a reason for being "unable" to help Eddie is pathetic. Cheers! John

Quoted text (12 lines)

>MS hasn't done it ONCE, he does these things over and over again, he >punted Damon Hill in Australia in 94, during the British GP the same >year he was playing mindgames on Hill and overtook him on the pace lap, >he was penalized with a stop/go, but refused to accept the black flag >and stayed out (which is about the worst you can do, not respecting race >control) and then the incident with JV (I'm sure I've forgotten a few >things in there somewhere), I can see a pattern here, MS thinks he can >do whatever he wants, but noone can do ANYTHING to him, I can even >remember him being upset at Hill at Suzuka last year for not letting him >past (they were fighting for position because Ferrari/MS screwed up >something at the start and had to start dead last) as everyone else had >done, I was LMAO and thinking, is this payback time or what :-)

Agree 100%. Of course it is a part of the sport that you complain, since any sanctions against your opponent (or even shift in public opinion) will swing the advantage your way in future. The trouble is, Schumi really seems to believe it. He needs someone to keep him "under control", as Mansell did to Senna, and Senna did to Schumacher. I still remember the cameras on Schumacher in the pits after he had tried to muscle his way past Senna in 1993 and had the door slammed on him in no uncertain terms - "It's not fair, it's not fair". Different tune these days - Damon has to let him by despite fighting for position?! Why, because he screwed the start and is losing the Championship? The words are twisted to suit the situation and then forgotten - no integrity, no consistency, just pure competitive aggression. Nothing wrong with that as long as it is seen for what it is. Cheers! John

Not at all. I am simply saying that he has no right to complain about something that people do to him. After all he didn't punt JV, he attempted it and spun himself out of the race and championship. I certainly never saw DC do anything close to that this year except to his teammate (and I don't believe it was with the purpose of crashing him out). -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

Absolutely. Did DC violate some F1 rule during the last race? I would imagine it had more to do with team tactics than any- thing else. All of which is ok unless it happens to schumacher apparently. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

>So even if he did similar things in the past, he should not have it >done to him? Is that what you are actually saying? >Wow... Ever hear of "Two wrongs don't make a right" ? We *already* knew that Schumacher was capable of unsportsman-like conduct from his attempt at ramming Jacques. I used to respect Coulthart for his sportsmanship (i.e. letting Mika by in Australia and all) but his conduct in Suzuka this weekend just showed Coulthart can also behave unsporstman-like on top of being mistake prone. Again just because Schumacher can be a jerk doesn't mean we aren't disappointed when other drivers bring themselves down to his level, especially when a particular driver is one known to complain about backmarkers not allowing him to lap them in the past. Seeyas on the track. --John (Joao) Silva GPL Ferrari driver. Powerslide Racing Team - GMSS League F1 division. Rossi Razzi Racing Team - IGPLC League F2 division.

Richard. We either agree to disagree here or you may have misinterpreted what I was getting at, maybe owing to my bad articulation. I will make it absolutely plain to you that in now way do I condone unsporting behaviour in any shape or form and in any discipline be it GP racing or the world championship for blind darts players. You are quite right. I would not like or tolerate it. I suspect that you and I hold similar values in respect to honourable conduct. This was the lack of articulation to which I previously referred. I never meant that it was ok by me. What I meant to convey in a word was that it is generally acknowledged, if not entirely accepted by the teams, drivers, sponsors and partisan fans (when it suits), that winning at all cost is the only thing that matters in this day and age. It is a sad state of affairs but a sign of the times. I hope this now makes sense to you when put it into context within the original post. Regards MS

> Well, that's very much open to debate - I believe '94 was a genuine > accident. I may be in a minority in that belief. At the time I thought that too, I have since changed my mind... Yes, but it was still MS choice not to abide by the rules I sort of agree, it doesn't make it "right" for everyone else to do the same, but to see that hypocrit MS sitting there and accusing others of not "playing by the rules", when he himself is the biggest offender of them all, it's just so comical to me......... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy

You may be in the minority, but I'll gladly join you there. Playing mindgames with Hill requires VERY LITTLE MIND. Damon Hill is the most overrated driver in recent memory and I for one am glad to see him finished. One less crybaby in the mold of Mario/Michael Andretti. Don McCorkle

Which means we should just let him keep right on going? How about three wrongs? Four? Five? Fact is that with a gutless FIA more interested in money than sport the only thing that will keep things in check are other drivers, as Mansell did to Senna, and Senna did to Schumacher. He's made no more errors than average, and less than most. It's simply that since he's at the front a lot these things are obvious.Look at how many times his car broke down this year, and what position it was in when it did so.... Hardly the same situation... Cheers! John

: Forget honourable actions. They : went out the window years ago. As long as it's in the rulebook, or even on : the outer margins of the page it's ok these days! Rubbish Mark - you wouldn't like someone doing that to you in online *** and then saying "Oh - someone did something similar to me the other day - if it's on the outer margins of the page of the rulebook it's OK" -- 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

>Which means we should just let him keep right on going? How about >three wrongs? Four? Five? Fact is that with a gutless FIA more >interested in money than sport the only thing that will keep things in >check are other drivers, as Mansell did to Senna, and Senna did to >Schumacher. I agree, at the time Schumacher did that, I wanted the FIA to severely penalize him, a few race suspensions for the following season (per what happened to Paul Tracy in CART) would have made Schumacher and any other driver think twice in the future before trying to ram his competitor in the last race of the season be it Schumacher, Senna, Prost etc... So we agree that Schumacher should have been severely penalized for that. He lost all respect many of us had for him as a driver even the fans who still believed he might have been innocent in Australia '94 could not deny Schumacher's despicable win-at-any-cost attitude in Jerez '97. While I still think he is a great talent on the track, I have no respect for him as a true racer or gentleman. Not sure that he cares what we think but his Championships in the past (or future) will always have a big asterisk in my book for what a jerk he was. Senna and Prost are the same, in my book how you win does matter, and that's a big reason I've been a big Mika and Jacques fan even though I cheer for Ferrari too. Again that was not so much a criticism of Coulthart's errors as my disappointment that even when he was making errors I always felt at least he was a classy guy (like Mika), this put the McLaren drivers above Schumacher and Irvine who run off at the mouth and do anything to win, but Coulthart's tactics last Sunday brought himself down to Schumacher's jerk level and for no great reason, Schumacher was not even a big threat to Mika with that 7 second lead. I disagree, even before Schumacher whined about Coulthart in the post race interview I had already commented about what poor behaviour Coulthart had shown, just because Schumacher whined about it and Schumacher really is not one who is above doing that sort of thing, doesn't change the fact that Coulthart disappointed many of us. Oh well, I think Suzuka turned out for the best overall. Although I wanted Ferrari to win the championship this year, the whole Sepang cheating/appeal left a very sour taste in my mouth. I'm very glad that Mika put in a great performance, and won the championship in such great form in the last race, very much making the politics of team managers and money grubbing organizers a non issue. My hat is off to Mika for an awesome performance under tremendous pressure and for being able to do this in a classy manner without resorting to any underhanded tactics. BTW great thread, a bit OFF TOPIC but I think the discussion of classy racing behaviour totally applies the same to online racing behaviour on VROC so not totally OFF TOPIC :-) Seeyas on the track. --John (Joao) Silva GPL Ferrari driver. Powerslide Racing Team - GMSS League F1 division. Rossi Razzi Racing Team - IGPLC League F2 division.

RUN !!! (DK) > Playing mindgames with Hill requires VERY LITTLE MIND. Damon Hill is the most > overrated driver in recent memory and I for one am glad to see him finished. > One less crybaby in the mold of Mario/Michael Andretti. > Don McCorkle

> >: during the British GP the same > >: year he was playing mindgames on Hill and overtook him on the pace lap, > Playing mindgames with Hill requires VERY LITTLE MIND. Damon Hill is the most > overrated driver in recent memory and I for one am glad to see him finished. > One less crybaby in the mold of Mario/Michael Andretti. So, by your definition, playing mindgames on a driver easily manipulated by such, in this instance Damon Hill (although I disagree) is ok, but playing that same game on a driver less prone to be manipulated, in this instance Schumacher (although I think there are a few incidents that has shown that he is just as much a crybaby as anyone else in F1) is not ok, is this what you're saying ? Just wondering.......... And as for who is the most overrated driver in F1 in recent years, I'll be more than happy to discuss that too Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy

Hmmm, but if someone did that to you continually and it WAS on the outer fringes of the rulebook, what recourse would you have other than to respond in kind and demonstrate that you wouldn't accept that kind of treatment? It's not question of "liking it", it's what is necessary if you want to have a chance in F1 today - you can't be pushed around. Cheers! John

MS hasn't done it ONCE, he does these things over and over again, he Um... Correct me if I'm wrong but Schumacher DID do a stop and go on the last lap. -- Sean Higgins Proud Member of Beaver Creek Racing Redline Racing League www.rrlnrs.com CNSRL www.cnsrl.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~higgy/hsts2/ HSTS, Powered by ATI Rage 128 http://www.atitech.ca ATI Technologies

Quoted text (9 lines)

> MS hasn't done it ONCE, he does these things over and over again, he > >punted Damon Hill in Australia in 94, during the British GP the same > >year he was playing mindgames on Hill and overtook him on the pace lap, > >he was penalized with a stop/go, but refused to accept the black flag > >and stayed out (which is about the worst you can do, not respecting race > >control) > Um... Correct me if I'm wrong but Schumacher DID do a stop and go on the > last lap.

Not sure wich lap it was, but you're correct, he DID serve it eventually, but not soon enough, and got a 2 race ban for disobeing racecontrol.... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy