OT: Ferrari wins its appeal

According to Espn, Ferrari won its appeal and the F1 Championship will come down to the last race! :)

Yes, I read it here http://www.f1-live.com/GB/ The FIA basically said Oops!, we did not measure it correctly the first time. The tech stewards did not have proper measuring tools. I think there is also some confusion in what the rules are on these dimensions. I wish it was that easy to appeal and change an SCCA decision. Lutrell :-) DSR # 74 http://insideracingtechnology.com/dsr1.htm >According to Espn, Ferrari won its appeal and the F1 Championship will come >down to the last race! :)

From the FIA Press Release: "In a press release issued in the past five minutes, the FIA court of appeal has quoted the following as reasons for the reinstatement of the Ferrari's: 1. All dimensions of the turning vane (barge board) were within the 5mm tolerance allowed by the relevant regulations, provided the vane was properly attached to the car. 2. The 10mm dimension referred to in the Technical Delegate's report resulted from a method of measurement which was not necessarily in strict conformity with the regulations. 3. The measuring equipment available to the FIA scrutineers at the Malaysian Grand prix was not sufficiently accurate to call into question Ferrari's statement that the turning vane was indeed properly attached to the car. This announcement confirms that Ferrari were able to win the appeal by convincing the court that the stewards could not prove that the cars were illegal. It had previously been thought that the team would base their appeal on the argument that while the part in question did not conform to the rules, they gained no performance advantage from the irregularity." It seems to me that the FIAs own shoddy tech inspections were to blame for this whole fracas and that Max and his bunch of hoodlums should be taken to task by all the teams and sponsors for allowing this to happen in the first place. >Yes, I read it here http://www.f1-live.com/GB/ >The FIA basically said Oops!, we did not measure it correctly the first time. The tech stewards did not have proper measuring

On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:57:23 -0700, "don hodgdon" >3. The measuring equipment available to the FIA scrutineers at the Malaysian >Grand prix was not sufficiently accurate to call into question Ferrari's >statement that the turning vane was indeed properly attached to the car. [Snip...] Let us not forget that FERRARI also confessed to the illegality, and that presumably also their measuring equipment was also of equivalent error-prone design. What were they using that couldn't resolve a measurement to an accuracy of less than 1cm? A metre stick? A school ruler? Words cannot express how much this "trial" stinks of collusion to recreate the Suzuka money spinner. Cheers! John

John Wallace wrote: > On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:57:23 -0700, "don hodgdon" > <[email hidden]> wrote > >It seems to me that the FIAs own shoddy tech inspections were to blame for > >this whole fracas and that Max and his bunch of hoodlums should be taken to > >task by all the teams and sponsors for allowing this to happen in the first > >place. John Wallace:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Let us not forget that FERRARI also confessed to the illegality, and > that presumably also their measuring equipment was also of equivalent > error-prone design. What were they using that couldn't resolve a > measurement to an accuracy of less than 1cm? A metre stick? A school > ruler? > Words cannot express how much this "trial" stinks of collusion to > recreate the Suzuka money spinner. > Cheers! > John

Well, apparently words CAN express how much *you* think this hearing stinks of collusion, but that doesn't make it necessarily true. Also, your characterization of Ross Brawn's remarks as some sort of "confession of illegality" are somewhat hyperbolic, and not exactly on the mark, in either spirit or letter. As to Mr. Hodgdon's remarks concerning the FIAs "shoddy tech inspections," apparently he's not alone in this opinion, as the following two articles (bottom) from F1Racing.net clearly show. Remember that the individual members of the appeals panel are well and truly separate from FIA or FOCA, all members being judges or attorneys with no connections -- legal, commercial, or otherwise -- to any of the parties involved. Ferrari said up front that they would present their case, NOT based on the unfortunate effects of their DQ upon the championship, but in technical terms that would leave no doubt the vanes were within the FIA 5mm tolerance. The panel was convinced of Ferrari's arguments, based upon the measuring devices used by Ferrari AND by the FIA in Sepang. Also remember that the measurement in question is not an absolute measurement of the vane itself, but the vane's position in relation to the bodywork -- the actual citation from Jo Bauer referred to article 3.12.1 of the FIA rulebook, which specifies NOT the dimensions of the barge boards, but their relationship to the rest of the bodywork: <<FIA's technical delegate Jo Bauer said: "Following the race, car numbers 03 (Schumacher) and 04 (Irvine) were checked for bodywork conformity. When checking the bodywork facing the ground (Article 3.12.1) it was noticed that the upper parts of the deflector panels do not lie on either the reference or step planes. IN MY OPINION [emphasis mine--BB] neither car complies with Article 3.12.1 of the 1999 FIA Formula One technical regulations." Article 3.12.1 of the FIA rules says: All sprung parts of the car situated more than 33cm behind the front wheel centre line and more than 33cm forward of the rear wheel centre line, and which are visible from underneath, must form surfaces which lie on one of two parallel planes, the reference plane or the step plane.>> The extreme end of the turning vane, in Bauer's opinion, lay outside one or both the referenced planes by "less than one centimetre." It's one thing to measure a dimension on a flat piece of composite, quite another to measure -- in mid-air, as it were -- a single point of one piece of bodywork in relation to a theoretical plane defined by the maximum point of another piece of bodywork. As to your characterizations of Ross Brawn's remarks: "Technical director Ross Brawn showed the offending barge boards to the media at a packed gathering some 4 hours after the race. "We do not have influence on what parts of the car the FIA will check": Brawn explained. "The parts were used at Nurburgring and we are sure there was no performance benefit. The design was correct, but there may have been an error in production which has left a small piece of material absent. There is a piece missing and that is about one centimeter. We haven't established the reason why that has occurred" With those facts in mind, consider the actual findings, announced this morning, of the appeals board: << 1. All dimensions of the turning vane (barge board) were within the 5mm tolerance allowed by the relevant regulations, provided the vane was properly attached to the car. 2. The 10mm dimension referred to in the Technical Delegate's report resulted from a method of measurement which was not necessarily in strict conformity with the regulations. 3. The measuring equipment available to the FIA scrutineers at the Malaysian Grand prix was not sufficiently accurate to call into question Ferrari's statement that the turning vane was indeed properly attached to the car.>> Now consider, in light of Ron Dennis' call on October 15 for a "fair fight": << Autosport, 15 October, 1999 In Formula One, McLaren team boss Ron Dennis has called for a fair fight between the championship rivals this weekend at the Malaysian Grand Prix.>> ...that same Ron Dennis immediately screaming, at the end of the race in Malaysia, for the stewards to disqualify Ferrari for allowing Michael Schumacher to wear his grooved tires down to near slicks, Dennis intimating that Schumacher stayed out on "unsafe" tires only to block Hakkinen. Considering the ease with which other passes were made on the Sepang track, the stewards found Dennis' call for a DQ to have no merit, and it was refused. Just as the two Ferraris, done with post-race scrutineering, were about to be rolled off the plate and out of parc ferm, someone, by Jo Bauer's own account of the incident, tipped him off that he really ought to have a look at the Ferrari's barge boards. No one knows who that someone was, and only perennial whacko Flavio Briatore and German mag auto motor und sport (longtime partisans of Michael Schumacher) have said out loud it was someone from McLaren-Mercedes. You, Mr. Wallace, have repeatedly concluded and opined that Ferrari were blatantly and knowingly running an "illegal" car, that there is "collusion" to keep Ferrari in the Championship, that the whole thing is a conspiracy worthy of Oliver Stone. People closer to the matter have judged otherwise, and even Paul Stewart -- with a very great deal to lose in his own team's championship placing by the overturn of the DQ, and an initial supporter of McLaren's call for the DQ to be upheld -- said after the ruling: "Before we arrived in Paris [for the hearing], we were under the impression that this was a clear-cut case of a breach of the FIA technical regulations by Ferrari. Fresh evidence was presented [by the Italian team] at the hearing by the FIA which acknowledged that the level of infringement (5mm) was in fact half that of the original measurement taken by the FIA technical delegate at the Malaysian Grand Prix." "Based on the fact that 5mm is the accepted level of tolerance applied to that particular measurement under the FIA regulations, and the court was satisfied that no infringement had occurred, we accept the court's decision to uphold Ferrari's appeal." One could hardly find a more unbiased observer in *that* particular situation... Just as much -- if not more -- of a case could be made for Dennis/McLaren sowing the seeds of turmoil to try to win a championship in the courts that they have been singularly unable to achieve on the track. Ferrari, at least, have fought their way up against seemingly insurmountable odds, considering McLaren's early-season dominance, but Dennis, having unwisely thrown a wrench into his own championship aspirations by "allowing" Coulthard to win an early-season race that HE had not earned (and bringing the righteous wrath of the FIA AND FOCA upon his own head). After all, it seemed early in the season that Dennis could afford to throw races away. Now wants to revise history to his own advantage because he was mistaken in his early optimism. Who's *really* the poor sportsman in this scenario? Bart Brown -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mosely insists Bernie had no influence Max Mosely insisted that Bernie Ecclestone had no influence over the decision made by the International Court of Appeal with regard to his comments earlier this week. "The court of appeal criticised, I think with some justification our methods of measurement. There was also criticism by the court as to the regulation itself," said Mosley. "Those two criticisms of methods of measurement are going to be looked into very carefully," he concluded. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ferrari wins appeal At 11.00am local time Paris a roar swept through the crowd awaiting the ruling that Max Mosley of the FIA would announce. Ferrari have been successful in their appeal against their disqualification from the Malaysian Grand Prix last weekend. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Ferrari that they gained no advantage from the small irregularity on the bargeboards. Ferrari brought their own equipment to the hearing to prove that the turning vanes on the barge boards did not exceed the 5mm tolerance level when the cars were racing on the circuit. Ferrari keep the 16 constructors points they gained in Malaysia as well as the drivers' championship points they won. This means Eddie Irvine leads the Drivers championship by four points - and Ferrari lead the constructors' championship by the same four point margin.

I agree John.... and I also think others would if they too knew what kind of measurement equipment the FIA uses to control the F1 cars... Racecar Engineering ran an article about this equipment some years ago.... and beilive me - it's state-of-the art stuff! This "trial" was just a hoax.... I suspect Bernie had the final call on this one.... remember.. a showdown in Suzuka spells $$$$$$$$$ for him and Max! -- All the best, Edwin Solheim *remove SPAM-GUARD in address to reply* The Paddock - a legendary site.... <http://home.c2i.net/thepaddock> *** Proud member of the GPLEA *** > Let us not forget that FERRARI also confessed to the illegality, and > that presumably also their measuring equipment was also of equivalent > error-prone design. What were they using that couldn't resolve a > measurement to an accuracy of less than 1cm? A metre stick? A school > ruler? > Words cannot express how much this "trial" stinks of collusion to > recreate the Suzuka money spinner.

On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 16:47:01 -0500, Barton Spencer Brown >Well, apparently words CAN express how much *you* think this hearing >stinks of collusion, but that doesn't make it necessarily true. Words can't, that was merely an outline an opinion. So on your TV last Sunday Ross Brawn was *NOT* admitting that the part was outwith the regulations set out by the FIA? If Ferrari thought the part was legal they're pretty unlikely to say what he did - or didn't he have a ruler handy? I guess it's just lucky that it came out in favour of Ferrari and Bernie's money-spinner then. Hey, if I were McLaren I'd call that libellious. I have clearly stated that there is no way of knowing WHAT Ferrari were doing, that it is inconceivable that they chose to run an illegal car but that it was equally incredible that they could make such a mistake. That Ferrari deliberately ran an illegal car was not something I doscounted, but it was not something I believed either - it's called "keeping an open mind", or making a decision based upon the FACTS that you KNOW. No known facts = no decision. Now tell me you know what I was thinking better than I did.... As for Paul Stewart, have you heard his weasel words after Luciano Berti _obviously_ ***ed Marc Hynes off the grid? Maybe judged harshly, but I lost all respect for him with those comments. Which early season race did RD allow Coulthard to win? He won Silverstone on merit and Spa likewise - what was gifted to him? As for McLaren being unable to win on the track, had it not been for _Hakkinen's_ errors in Imola and Monza Ferrari wouldn't even be close - hardly McLaren's fault. As for the making more of a case for McLaren's sowing the seeds of turmoil, since when was it wrong to question the legality of one of your competitors, especially with the track record of Byrne/Brawn/Schumacher and when the FIA technical representative and meeting stewards also believed the car to be illegal? If there was the remotest sniff of that being a possibility you can be sure Ferrari would have tried it. Dennis has stated consistently that he will not destroy Coulthard's title aspirations while they still exist - this was not early season madness, this was and remains his position (or did until DC chucked it away at Nurburgring). It seems to me like Dennis is THE true sportsman, for allowing his drivers, BOTH of his drivers, to do what they want and what the sport is all about. Cheers! John PS - Please STOP sending these messages by e-mail as well. Thanks.

i mean bollocks to the other guy sorry :) Bernhard Deininger wrote in message ...

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Bollocks >Barton Spencer Brown wrote in message <[email hidden]>... >>John Wallace wrote: >>> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:57:23 -0700, "don hodgdon" >>> <[email hidden]> wrote >>> >It seems to me that the FIAs own shoddy tech inspections were to blame >for >>> >this whole fracas and that Max and his bunch of hoodlums should be

taken

Quoted text (97 lines)

>to >>> >task by all the teams and sponsors for allowing this to happen in the >first >>> >place. >>John Wallace: >>> Let us not forget that FERRARI also confessed to the illegality, and >>> that presumably also their measuring equipment was also of equivalent >>> error-prone design. What were they using that couldn't resolve a >>> measurement to an accuracy of less than 1cm? A metre stick? A school >>> ruler? >>> Words cannot express how much this "trial" stinks of collusion to >>> recreate the Suzuka money spinner. >>> Cheers! >>> John >>Well, apparently words CAN express how much *you* think this hearing >>stinks of collusion, but that doesn't make it necessarily true. Also, >>your characterization of Ross Brawn's remarks as some sort of >>"confession of illegality" are somewhat hyperbolic, and not exactly on >>the mark, in either spirit or letter. As to Mr. Hodgdon's remarks >>concerning the FIAs "shoddy tech inspections," apparently he's not alone >>in this opinion, as the following two articles (bottom) from >>F1Racing.net clearly show. Remember that the individual members of the >>appeals panel are well and truly separate from FIA or FOCA, all members >>being judges or attorneys with no connections -- legal, commercial, or >>otherwise -- to any of the parties involved. Ferrari said up front that >>they would present their case, NOT based on the unfortunate effects of >>their DQ upon the championship, but in technical terms that would leave >>no doubt the vanes were within the FIA 5mm tolerance. The panel was >>convinced of Ferrari's arguments, based upon the measuring devices used >>by Ferrari AND by the FIA in Sepang. Also remember that the measurement >>in question is not an absolute measurement of the vane itself, but the >>vane's position in relation to the bodywork -- the actual citation from >>Jo Bauer referred to article 3.12.1 of the FIA rulebook, which specifies >>NOT the dimensions of the barge boards, but their relationship to the >>rest of the bodywork: >><<FIA's technical delegate Jo Bauer said: "Following the race, car >>numbers 03 (Schumacher) and 04 (Irvine) were checked for bodywork >>conformity. When checking the bodywork facing the ground (Article >>3.12.1) it was noticed that the upper parts of the deflector panels do >>not lie on either the reference or step planes. IN MY OPINION [emphasis >>mine--BB] neither car complies with Article 3.12.1 of the 1999 FIA >>Formula One technical regulations." >>Article 3.12.1 of the FIA rules says: All sprung parts of the car >>situated more than 33cm behind the front wheel centre line and more than >>33cm forward of the rear wheel centre line, and which are visible from >>underneath, must form surfaces which lie on one of two parallel planes, >>the reference plane or the step plane.>> >>The extreme end of the turning vane, in Bauer's opinion, lay outside one >>or both the referenced planes by "less than one centimetre." >>It's one thing to measure a dimension on a flat piece of composite, >>quite another to measure -- in mid-air, as it were -- a single point of >>one piece of bodywork in relation to a theoretical plane defined by the >>maximum point of another piece of bodywork. >>As to your characterizations of Ross Brawn's remarks: >>"Technical director Ross Brawn showed the offending barge boards to the >>media at a packed gathering some 4 hours after the race. >>"We do not have influence on what parts of the car the FIA will check": >>Brawn explained. "The parts were used at Nurburgring and we are sure >>there was no performance benefit. The design was correct, but there may >>have been an error in production which has left a small piece of >>material absent. There is a piece missing and that is about one >>centimeter. We haven't established the reason why that has occurred" >>With those facts in mind, consider the actual findings, announced this >>morning, of the appeals board: >><< 1. All dimensions of the turning vane (barge board) were within the >>5mm tolerance allowed by the relevant regulations, provided the vane was >>properly attached to the car. >>2. The 10mm dimension referred to in the Technical Delegate's report >>resulted from a method of measurement which was not necessarily in >>strict conformity with the regulations. >>3. The measuring equipment available to the FIA scrutineers at the >>Malaysian Grand prix was not sufficiently accurate to call into question >>Ferrari's statement that the turning vane was indeed properly attached >>to the car.>> >>Now consider, in light of Ron Dennis' call on October 15 for a "fair >fight": >><< Autosport, 15 October, 1999 >>In Formula One, McLaren team boss Ron Dennis has called for a fair fight >>between the championship rivals this weekend at the Malaysian Grand

Prix.>>

Quoted text (87 lines)

>>...that same Ron Dennis immediately screaming, at the end of the race in >>Malaysia, for the stewards to disqualify Ferrari for allowing Michael >>Schumacher to wear his grooved tires down to near slicks, Dennis >>intimating that Schumacher stayed out on "unsafe" tires only to block >>Hakkinen. Considering the ease with which other passes were made on the >>Sepang track, the stewards found Dennis' call for a DQ to have no merit, >>and it was refused. Just as the two Ferraris, done with post-race >>scrutineering, were about to be rolled off the plate and out of parc >>ferm, someone, by Jo Bauer's own account of the incident, tipped him >>off that he really ought to have a look at the Ferrari's barge boards. >>No one knows who that someone was, and only perennial whacko Flavio >>Briatore and German mag auto motor und sport (longtime partisans of >>Michael Schumacher) have said out loud it was someone from >>McLaren-Mercedes. >>You, Mr. Wallace, have repeatedly concluded and opined that Ferrari were >>blatantly and knowingly running an "illegal" car, that there is >>"collusion" to keep Ferrari in the Championship, that the whole thing is >>a conspiracy worthy of Oliver Stone. People closer to the matter have >>judged otherwise, and even Paul Stewart -- with a very great deal to >>lose in his own team's championship placing by the overturn of the DQ, >>and an initial supporter of McLaren's call for the DQ to be upheld -- >>said after the ruling: >>"Before we arrived in Paris [for the hearing], we were under the >>impression that this was a clear-cut case of a breach of the FIA >>technical regulations by Ferrari. Fresh evidence was presented [by the >>Italian team] at the hearing by the FIA which acknowledged that the >>level of infringement (5mm) was in fact half that of the original >>measurement taken by the FIA technical delegate at the Malaysian Grand >Prix." >>"Based on the fact that 5mm is the accepted level of tolerance applied >>to that particular measurement under the FIA regulations, and the court >>was satisfied that no infringement had occurred, we accept the court's >>decision to uphold Ferrari's appeal." >>One could hardly find a more unbiased observer in *that* particular >>situation... >>Just as much -- if not more -- of a case could be made for >>Dennis/McLaren sowing the seeds of turmoil to try to win a championship >>in the courts that they have been singularly unable to achieve on the >>track. Ferrari, at least, have fought their way up against seemingly >>insurmountable odds, considering McLaren's early-season dominance, but >>Dennis, having unwisely thrown a wrench into his own championship >>aspirations by "allowing" Coulthard to win an early-season race that HE >>had not earned (and bringing the righteous wrath of the FIA AND FOCA >>upon his own head). After all, it seemed early in the season that Dennis >>could afford to throw races away. Now wants to revise history to his own >>advantage because he was mistaken in his early optimism. Who's *really* >>the poor sportsman in this scenario? >>Bart Brown >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Mosely insists Bernie had no influence >>Max Mosely insisted that Bernie Ecclestone had no influence over the >>decision made by the International Court of Appeal with regard to his >>comments earlier this week. >>"The court of appeal criticised, I think with some justification our >>methods of measurement. There was also criticism by the court as to the >>regulation itself," said Mosley. >>"Those two criticisms of methods of measurement are going to be looked >>into very carefully," he concluded. >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Ferrari wins appeal >>At 11.00am local time Paris a roar swept through the crowd awaiting the >>ruling that Max Mosley of the FIA would announce. Ferrari have been >>successful in their appeal against their disqualification from the >>Malaysian Grand Prix last weekend. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour >>of Ferrari that they gained no advantage from the small irregularity on >>the bargeboards. >>Ferrari brought their own equipment to the hearing to prove that the >>turning vanes on the barge boards did not exceed the 5mm tolerance level >>when the cars were racing on the circuit. >>Ferrari keep the 16 constructors points they gained in Malaysia as well >>as the drivers' championship points they won. This means Eddie Irvine >>leads the Drivers championship by four points - and Ferrari lead the >>constructors' championship by the same four point margin.

Bollocks Barton Spencer Brown wrote in message <[email hidden]>... >John Wallace wrote: >> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:57:23 -0700, "don hodgdon" >> <[email hidden]> wrote >> >It seems to me that the FIAs own shoddy tech inspections were to blame for >> >this whole fracas and that Max and his bunch of hoodlums should be taken to >> >task by all the teams and sponsors for allowing this to happen in the first

Quoted text (89 lines)

>> >place. >John Wallace: >> Let us not forget that FERRARI also confessed to the illegality, and >> that presumably also their measuring equipment was also of equivalent >> error-prone design. What were they using that couldn't resolve a >> measurement to an accuracy of less than 1cm? A metre stick? A school >> ruler? >> Words cannot express how much this "trial" stinks of collusion to >> recreate the Suzuka money spinner. >> Cheers! >> John >Well, apparently words CAN express how much *you* think this hearing >stinks of collusion, but that doesn't make it necessarily true. Also, >your characterization of Ross Brawn's remarks as some sort of >"confession of illegality" are somewhat hyperbolic, and not exactly on >the mark, in either spirit or letter. As to Mr. Hodgdon's remarks >concerning the FIAs "shoddy tech inspections," apparently he's not alone >in this opinion, as the following two articles (bottom) from >F1Racing.net clearly show. Remember that the individual members of the >appeals panel are well and truly separate from FIA or FOCA, all members >being judges or attorneys with no connections -- legal, commercial, or >otherwise -- to any of the parties involved. Ferrari said up front that >they would present their case, NOT based on the unfortunate effects of >their DQ upon the championship, but in technical terms that would leave >no doubt the vanes were within the FIA 5mm tolerance. The panel was >convinced of Ferrari's arguments, based upon the measuring devices used >by Ferrari AND by the FIA in Sepang. Also remember that the measurement >in question is not an absolute measurement of the vane itself, but the >vane's position in relation to the bodywork -- the actual citation from >Jo Bauer referred to article 3.12.1 of the FIA rulebook, which specifies >NOT the dimensions of the barge boards, but their relationship to the >rest of the bodywork: ><<FIA's technical delegate Jo Bauer said: "Following the race, car >numbers 03 (Schumacher) and 04 (Irvine) were checked for bodywork >conformity. When checking the bodywork facing the ground (Article >3.12.1) it was noticed that the upper parts of the deflector panels do >not lie on either the reference or step planes. IN MY OPINION [emphasis >mine--BB] neither car complies with Article 3.12.1 of the 1999 FIA >Formula One technical regulations." >Article 3.12.1 of the FIA rules says: All sprung parts of the car >situated more than 33cm behind the front wheel centre line and more than >33cm forward of the rear wheel centre line, and which are visible from >underneath, must form surfaces which lie on one of two parallel planes, >the reference plane or the step plane.>> >The extreme end of the turning vane, in Bauer's opinion, lay outside one >or both the referenced planes by "less than one centimetre." >It's one thing to measure a dimension on a flat piece of composite, >quite another to measure -- in mid-air, as it were -- a single point of >one piece of bodywork in relation to a theoretical plane defined by the >maximum point of another piece of bodywork. >As to your characterizations of Ross Brawn's remarks: >"Technical director Ross Brawn showed the offending barge boards to the >media at a packed gathering some 4 hours after the race. >"We do not have influence on what parts of the car the FIA will check": >Brawn explained. "The parts were used at Nurburgring and we are sure >there was no performance benefit. The design was correct, but there may >have been an error in production which has left a small piece of >material absent. There is a piece missing and that is about one >centimeter. We haven't established the reason why that has occurred" >With those facts in mind, consider the actual findings, announced this >morning, of the appeals board: ><< 1. All dimensions of the turning vane (barge board) were within the >5mm tolerance allowed by the relevant regulations, provided the vane was >properly attached to the car. >2. The 10mm dimension referred to in the Technical Delegate's report >resulted from a method of measurement which was not necessarily in >strict conformity with the regulations. >3. The measuring equipment available to the FIA scrutineers at the >Malaysian Grand prix was not sufficiently accurate to call into question >Ferrari's statement that the turning vane was indeed properly attached >to the car.>> >Now consider, in light of Ron Dennis' call on October 15 for a "fair

fight":

Quoted text (34 lines)

><< Autosport, 15 October, 1999 >In Formula One, McLaren team boss Ron Dennis has called for a fair fight >between the championship rivals this weekend at the Malaysian Grand Prix.>> >...that same Ron Dennis immediately screaming, at the end of the race in >Malaysia, for the stewards to disqualify Ferrari for allowing Michael >Schumacher to wear his grooved tires down to near slicks, Dennis >intimating that Schumacher stayed out on "unsafe" tires only to block >Hakkinen. Considering the ease with which other passes were made on the >Sepang track, the stewards found Dennis' call for a DQ to have no merit, >and it was refused. Just as the two Ferraris, done with post-race >scrutineering, were about to be rolled off the plate and out of parc >ferm, someone, by Jo Bauer's own account of the incident, tipped him >off that he really ought to have a look at the Ferrari's barge boards. >No one knows who that someone was, and only perennial whacko Flavio >Briatore and German mag auto motor und sport (longtime partisans of >Michael Schumacher) have said out loud it was someone from >McLaren-Mercedes. >You, Mr. Wallace, have repeatedly concluded and opined that Ferrari were >blatantly and knowingly running an "illegal" car, that there is >"collusion" to keep Ferrari in the Championship, that the whole thing is >a conspiracy worthy of Oliver Stone. People closer to the matter have >judged otherwise, and even Paul Stewart -- with a very great deal to >lose in his own team's championship placing by the overturn of the DQ, >and an initial supporter of McLaren's call for the DQ to be upheld -- >said after the ruling: >"Before we arrived in Paris [for the hearing], we were under the >impression that this was a clear-cut case of a breach of the FIA >technical regulations by Ferrari. Fresh evidence was presented [by the >Italian team] at the hearing by the FIA which acknowledged that the >level of infringement (5mm) was in fact half that of the original >measurement taken by the FIA technical delegate at the Malaysian Grand

Prix."

Quoted text (55 lines)

>"Based on the fact that 5mm is the accepted level of tolerance applied >to that particular measurement under the FIA regulations, and the court >was satisfied that no infringement had occurred, we accept the court's >decision to uphold Ferrari's appeal." >One could hardly find a more unbiased observer in *that* particular >situation... >Just as much -- if not more -- of a case could be made for >Dennis/McLaren sowing the seeds of turmoil to try to win a championship >in the courts that they have been singularly unable to achieve on the >track. Ferrari, at least, have fought their way up against seemingly >insurmountable odds, considering McLaren's early-season dominance, but >Dennis, having unwisely thrown a wrench into his own championship >aspirations by "allowing" Coulthard to win an early-season race that HE >had not earned (and bringing the righteous wrath of the FIA AND FOCA >upon his own head). After all, it seemed early in the season that Dennis >could afford to throw races away. Now wants to revise history to his own >advantage because he was mistaken in his early optimism. Who's *really* >the poor sportsman in this scenario? >Bart Brown >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Mosely insists Bernie had no influence >Max Mosely insisted that Bernie Ecclestone had no influence over the >decision made by the International Court of Appeal with regard to his >comments earlier this week. >"The court of appeal criticised, I think with some justification our >methods of measurement. There was also criticism by the court as to the >regulation itself," said Mosley. >"Those two criticisms of methods of measurement are going to be looked >into very carefully," he concluded. >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Ferrari wins appeal >At 11.00am local time Paris a roar swept through the crowd awaiting the >ruling that Max Mosley of the FIA would announce. Ferrari have been >successful in their appeal against their disqualification from the >Malaysian Grand Prix last weekend. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour >of Ferrari that they gained no advantage from the small irregularity on >the bargeboards. >Ferrari brought their own equipment to the hearing to prove that the >turning vanes on the barge boards did not exceed the 5mm tolerance level >when the cars were racing on the circuit. >Ferrari keep the 16 constructors points they gained in Malaysia as well >as the drivers' championship points they won. This means Eddie Irvine >leads the Drivers championship by four points - and Ferrari lead the >constructors' championship by the same four point margin.

Do you really believe that Irvine earned this past win? If he earned it, he wouldn't have needed his big brother to stop on the track and wait up. Irvine deserves no championship. If it is going to come down to the last race, it shouldn't come down to which team mate holds up the other team better, but the 2 championship contenders going at it head to head. It is amazing what F1 has come to. J Black

I think that there could be something in this......after all, that ***y track was EXTREMELY wide!!! Excessively so! Perhaps their 12" rulers have NO graduations?!! Maybe the smallest lineal measurement in Malaysia is a "stick" (or Malay equivalent). > On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:57:23 -0700, "don hodgdon" > >3. The measuring equipment available to the FIA scrutineers at the Malaysian > >Grand prix was not sufficiently accurate to call into question Ferrari's > >statement that the turning vane was indeed properly attached to the car. > [Snip...] > >It seems to me that the FIAs own shoddy tech inspections were to blame for > >this whole fracas and that Max and his bunch of hoodlums should be taken to > >task by all the teams and sponsors for allowing this to happen in the first

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >place. > Let us not forget that FERRARI also confessed to the illegality, and > that presumably also their measuring equipment was also of equivalent > error-prone design. What were they using that couldn't resolve a > measurement to an accuracy of less than 1cm? A metre stick? A school > ruler? > Words cannot express how much this "trial" stinks of collusion to > recreate the Suzuka money spinner. > Cheers! > John

-----------== 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 Sat, 23 Oct 1999 23:57:00 +1000, "Bernhard Deininger" >i mean bollocks to the other guy sorry :) Bollocks to you too, you cunning linguist that you are. Cheers! John

A go suck an egg. Ferrari did not cheat and the barge is legal

Quoted text (25 lines)

> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:57:23 -0700, "don hodgdon" > >3. The measuring equipment available to the FIA scrutineers at the Malaysian > >Grand prix was not sufficiently accurate to call into question Ferrari's > >statement that the turning vane was indeed properly attached to the car. > [Snip...] > >It seems to me that the FIAs own shoddy tech inspections were to blame for > >this whole fracas and that Max and his bunch of hoodlums should be taken to > >task by all the teams and sponsors for allowing this to happen in the first > >place. > Let us not forget that FERRARI also confessed to the illegality, and > that presumably also their measuring equipment was also of equivalent > error-prone design. What were they using that couldn't resolve a > measurement to an accuracy of less than 1cm? A metre stick? A school > ruler? > Words cannot express how much this "trial" stinks of collusion to > recreate the Suzuka money spinner. > Cheers! > John

>A go suck an egg. Ferrari did not cheat and the barge is legal Could you possibly miss the point by any greater margin? Cheers! John

> If it is going to come down to the last > race, it shouldn't come down to which team mate holds up the other team > better, but the 2 championship contenders going at it head to head. It is > amazing what F1 has come to. > J Black Good grief! Have you ever seen Coulthard in full moving-chicane mode? "What F1 has come to"? Apparently you weren't around when Ren Arnoux raced... BB

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

>Didn't Hakkiens first two wins come from Coulthard moving over.... Nope. I believe you are thinking of the first race last year. Coulthard's first points this season was 3rd at Brazil and Mika was out of that race (his second DNF in 3 races). -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

Ah, the argument of the truly intelligent, at last! BB > i mean bollocks to the other guy sorry :) > >Bollocks

I agree with your reading of the events (and admire your careful examination of all available info), but have one data point to add: Norbert Haug, director of Mercedes motorsport, admitted on RTL TV after the decision of the court that it was indeed someone from team McLaren-Mercedes who tipped off the stewards. Haug said (I paraphrase from memory) that the team wanted to file an official protest regarding the barge boards, but was told by the officials that this wasn't necessary - they would look into the matter on their own. However, he refused the allegation that McL-M had known about the barge boards since the Nuerburgring race and had waited for the best opportunity to use this info with the most damaging effect for Ferrari. -- Wolfgang Preiss \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.

LOL!! Too true.....good example of a "moving chicane"! Remember when Renault first came into the fray with the turbos? Now THAT was a couple of years of chicanery! Literally!!! :o) -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

: Yes, I read it here http://www.f1-live.com/GB/ : The FIA basically said Oops!, we did not measure it correctly the first time. The tech stewards did not have proper measuring : tools. : I think there is also some confusion in what the rules are on these dimensions. : I wish it was that easy to appeal and change an SCCA decision. Actually, I think Ferrari said "look, when we tilt it backwards a few degrees, then the 10mm error becomes 5mm on each side. Magic! Pretty weasely to use words initially drafted to allow for tolerances on forming a large flat epoxy undertray to win their appeal, but then again, if the rule is vague, exploit it and force the FIA to better define their rule. Stephen

Again, what you think Ferrari or the appeals board said (a matter of opinion) and what the appeals board actually ruled (a very public matter of fact) are entirely different things. No offense, but whilst everyone is entitled to their opinion, no one is entitled to present their opinion as "the truth," unless it can be backed up with factual evidence -- not even an FIA tech steward, which was the whole point of these ridiculously extended threads in the first place, and the whole point of the appeals process. I'm still waiting to see a direct quote from Jean Todt or Ross Brawn or the Ferrari waterboy made during the Malaysian GP weekend or its aftermath in which anyone from Ferrari used the word "illegal" to describe the turning vanes in question. There's been plenty of blowhard "Well, *I* heard 'em say it!" but as yet none of the blowhards in question have come up with the necessary genuine quote. Same with this made-up-of-whole-cloth "look, when we tilt it backwards..." nonsense. Its absolutely astonishing that purported ***s could start a paragraph with the words "I think," and end up with the conclusion that "I think, therefore it *must* be true." As Mr. Wallace pointed out, no one on this list is even remotely in the same genius class as he, so I could obviously be wrong here -- but IMHO until someone comes up with the relevant, verifiable quotes (including that Autosport fiction involving Irvine speaking about the barge boards pre-race), then all we are left with are highly-fallible opinions, nothing more. These threads have gone on far too long -- certainly as much my fault as anyone's -- and I'm sure nobody cares about the issue at hand anymore; but people in this NG, as in every NG, present themselves as "experts" and make statements they wish everyone to take as the truth. If people are unwilling to back up what they say with nothing more palpable than their own opinions, when the necessary facts are available to anyone who wishes to find out the truth for themselves, then that says a great deal about the character of the person making the stentorian pronouncements of "The Truth According To Me," doesn't it? BB > Actually, I think Ferrari said "look, when we tilt it backwards a few degrees, then the 10mm error becomes 5mm on each side. Magic!

: Again, what you think Ferrari or the appeals board said (a matter of : opinion) and what the appeals board actually ruled (a very public matter : of fact) are entirely different things. No offense, but whilst everyone : is entitled to their opinion, no one is entitled to present their : opinion as "the truth," unless it can be backed up with factual evidence : -- not even an FIA tech steward, which was the whole point of these : ridiculously extended threads in the first place, and the whole point of : the appeals process. My comments on the whole issue are generally that the mounting of the deflector on the car is secondary to the actual shape of the deflector. The most logical way to measure it (given the nature of the "flat bottom" rule) in the case of Ferrari's new-style deflector with bottom lip, is to mount it on a nice, flat measurement table with the lip flush to the table, since it, by the rules, must lie on the step plane. Then get a perpendicular straight edge and a dial gage (standard gear in any mechanical tool box) and start checking the deflector for variations between the projection of the deflector onto the step plane, and the actual shape of the surface on the step plane. It's so obvious, and has nothing to do with the way the deflector was mounted on the car, as by definition of the rule, there is only one acceptable arrangement, that being with the lip aligned in the step plane. If the deflector was of the older style, with no lip, then of course it should be mounted vertically to conform to the rules. That ferrari made a case about the wuality of measurement made is acceptable. that one can debate how it was mounted on the car seems a moot point, given the flat bottom rule. That Ferrari has stretched the intention of the +/- 5mm tolerance, which would seem to be there to allow for manufacturing errors in the *large* composite flat bottom causing out-of-plane waviness, is either a brilliant legal argument or a weasel move. I'll keep my mouth shut on that one. : question have come up with the necessary genuine quote. Same with this : made-up-of-whole-cloth "look, when we tilt it backwards..." nonsense. : Its absolutely astonishing that purported ***s could start a paragraph : with the words "I think," and end up with the conclusion that "I think, : therefore it *must* be true." Well, I think you will find my comment was tongue-in-cheek, and nowhere do I say that is it true. Try not to burst a *** vessel over it: :> :> Actually, I think Ferrari said "look, when we tilt it backwards a few : degrees, then the 10mm error becomes 5mm on each side. Magic! Stephen

I think he was referring to Mika's first two career F1 wins, Jerez 97 and Melbourne 98 IIRC. -- Ian Parker UKGPL League http://members.xoom.com/ukgpl/index.html http://www.ukgpl.com -- > >Didn't Hakkiens first two wins come from Coulthard moving over.... > Nope. I believe you are thinking of the first race last year. > Coulthard's first points this season was 3rd at Brazil and > Mika was out of that race (his second DNF in 3 races). > -- > Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes. > cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com

On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:08:31 +0000, Barton Spencer Brown >As Mr. Wallace pointed out, no one on this list is even remotely in the >same genius class as he, so I could obviously be wrong here Shucks Barton, since I have _never_ said so I can only presume this is something you've dreamt up on your own. I'm flattered, really I am. Not really. In this case (as with much in F1) no "facts" are available, so the "put up or shut up" line is irrelevant. When talking about issues in F1 there are generally scant few facts, massive amounts of hyperbole on quotes that have been made and a long and rather unillustrious history from which to see that fair and correct decisions are a rather rare breed. Opinions are generally all we have, and I for one rather enjoy exchanging opinions. Trouble is it is rarely achievable on usenet with civility for any prolonged period of time - people love their own pets too much, me as much as anyone else on occasion. They see only the parts of a discussion they want to see, discount huge swathes of comment that doesn't agree with what they are trying to say, put words in people's mouths. That's not much fun, but seems to be the nature of usenet. Conversations in person never go the way of conversations on the 'net, which I'm sure says something interesting about body language, speech patterns and unspoken messages that are contained in "normal" conversation that get lost on this wonderful medium. Cheers! John

snip > Not really. In this case (as with much in F1) no "facts" are > available, so the "put up or shut up" line is irrelevant. When talking > about issues in F1 there are generally scant few facts, massive > amounts of hyperbole on quotes that have been made and a long and > rather unillustrious history from which to see that fair and correct > decisions are a rather rare breed. Hmm, you put forward the feelings of EI as facts, and the science based analysis of an engineer as questionable guessing... Sorry, your answers to me were dripping with arrogance ("bottle of water") and left no doubt about who knows it all and who doesn't. l8er ronny -- "I heard if you play the NT-4.0-CD backwards, you get a satanic message." "That's nothing, if you play it forward, it installs NT-4.0"

On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 09:52:34 +0200, Ronald Stoehr >Hmm, you put forward the feelings of EI as facts, and the science >based analysis of an engineer as questionable guessing... No, that is a misrepresentation - I put forward as a fact that Eddie Irvine said what he said - that is a fact, although can be misquoted out of contest - Autosport's comments are pending. The engineer's analysis can hardly be called science based from a cursory glance in the pitlane, hence it is questionable guessing. I personally tend toward Eddie's comments, talking up the Ferrari cause though they may be, over the Minardi engineer (as supporting another Italian team), but it's far from a fact. Sorry, but I have no control over what inferences you choose to draw from my statements and then present as facts. "Dripping with arrogance" is sarcasm in response to sarcasm, and a reasonable comment draws a reasonable comment. Response in kind. Cheers! John

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

> So what you end up with is a lot of double talk and no-one saying what > they really think. No, that is left to the likes of ourselves. Mayhap you're right, but these latest direct quotes from Mosley (concerning Bauer) and Norbert the Haug are quite the buck-you-uppo, IMHO. As for anyone from Ferrari saying publicly that anything on the car was actualy QUOTE illegal ENDQUOTE, you'd see the rocket launch from Maranello as far away as Guam, I imagine... BB