F1 team of the year?
Discussion
WilliBetz said:
flemke said:
...if the regulator anomalously decided that something that, by actual history or any reasonable interpretation, had been outside the rules was suddenly legal, and it was also performance-enhancing, then why eschew it?
That's a surprising question for you to ask. Hard to maintain the moral high ground, while exploiting another team's unintentionally released and unapparent IP...In this case, the rules clearly stated the maximum allowed deflection of the floor as an exception to the overarching rigid-bodywork rule. Ferrari tried to get around that, first by designing something that was not subject to scrutiny from the outside world, and then by contriving a justification in a form of words that was utterly disingenuous.
In those circumstances, if the regulator chooses to pervert the meaning of its rule simply in order to accomodate a favoured team, why shouldn't a competitor be able to make use of that?
The question isn't whether it would be right to exploit that, athough it may be whether it would be proper to inform all the other teams.
Any obligation to inform all the teams of the rules change would be the FIA's, not McLaren's. If the FIA were to fail to fulfil its obligation, I'm not sure whether McLaren themselves would have a secondary obligation.
WilliBetz said:
flemke said:
Perhaps bringing it up in the TWG would have got the same result, but could it have happened as quickly? How many more races might Ferrari have won in the meantime?
The safety card is normally top trump, and I think it would take priority over a routine request for opinion from the FIA technical dept. I'm not sure whether this really is a safety issue, but the FIA have a history of playing the safety card whenever they want to impose a regulatory change that may not get the teams' unanimous support.We've been told (and one is still sceptical of Stepney's credibility) that more than once prior to Australia the FIA had already had, and declined, the chance to rule against the Ferrari floor in principle. That is, it appears that they wanted to allow Ferrari to run it.
If that was their agenda, and then a team raised an issue about the adequacy of the floor test, why would the FIA not come back, say, six weeks later, and say that they thought the extant test was sufficient? The original rule would still be in place, with the more honest teams heeding it, and the less honest teams flouting it.
WilliBetz said:
flemke said:
Precisely, and the incessant appearance of an uneven playing field is what is turning so many of us away.
It's business. It's entertainment. Only very occasionally is it sporting.35secToNuvolari said:
What I meant is that most teams floors, including Mclaren's, flexed beyond the limit, and the decision to clarify the floor movement was, in part, a self-sacrificial act.
You could be right, although I have not heard that anywhere.What makes you think that the McLaren floor and most others flexed beyond the limit?
flemke said:
35secToNuvolari said:
What I meant is that most teams floors, including Mclaren's, flexed beyond the limit, and the decision to clarify the floor movement was, in part, a self-sacrificial act.
You could be right, although I have not heard that anywhere.What makes you think that the McLaren floor and most others flexed beyond the limit?
If they had to change the floor so that it remained stiff under an increased load than originally tested, I'm assuming that the original floor did not remain stiff under the increased load?
flemke said:
35secToNuvolari said:
What I meant is that most teams floors, including Mclaren's, flexed beyond the limit, and the decision to clarify the floor movement was, in part, a self-sacrificial act.
You could be right, although I have not heard that anywhere.What makes you think that the McLaren floor and most others flexed beyond the limit?
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57748
You can add Gascoyne to the list too.
And that Ferrari's floor was known about as early as Japan '06.
"Ferraris front splitter (part of the floor) is old news. See my 2006 brazilian technical review in the journal.
They raced it last year, I saw it in japan and asked the scrutineers about it. They knew about it and explained why it was there and under what rules it was allowed. "
Posted by reporter craig scarborough
http://forums.autosport.com/showthread.php?s=1aad5...
Edited by 35secToNuvolari on Friday 21st December 12:15
jamieboy said:
flemke said:
35secToNuvolari said:
What I meant is that most teams floors, including Mclaren's, flexed beyond the limit, and the decision to clarify the floor movement was, in part, a self-sacrificial act.
You could be right, although I have not heard that anywhere.What makes you think that the McLaren floor and most others flexed beyond the limit?
If they had to change the floor so that it remained stiff under an increased load than originally tested, I'm assuming that the original floor did not remain stiff under the increased load?
Nigel TOZZI: I cannot ask you about the brake system, unfortunately, not having seen your confidential witness statement.
Instead, I would like to ask you about the attack that you made on Mr Costa's statement, regarding the alleged illegality of the Ferrari car. I will take this shortly, because I do not think it is that relevant, but you make a big deal of it.
Mr Lowe, Article 315, to which you refer, of the Technical Regulations refers to aerodynamic influence: "with the exception of the cover described in Article 652 and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance, must, in compliance with rules regarding bodywork, be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car". Rigidly secured means having no degree of freedom. That is the part on which you suggest that the Ferrari car was in breach.
Patrick LOWE: Absolutely.
Nigel TOZZI: Do you agree with me that nothing is infinitely rigid?
Patrick LOWE: I don't know, Mr President, whether we want to explore the finer details of Article 3.15 today. It is a very complex topic; Charlie Whiting is very familiar with it.
Nigel TOZZI: Do you agree with me that nothing is infinitely rigid?
Patrick LOWE: I do agree, hence there are refinements to this in Article 3.17.
Nigel TOZZI: Exactly. The way the rigidity is tested.
Patrick LOWE: But -
Nigel TOZZI: Follow my questions, please!
Ian MILL: My witness is in the middle of an answer. My friend will wait for him to finish.
Nigel TOZZI: I will not be told by my friend what to do, but I am happy to let the witness finish.
Patrick LOWE: Article 3.15 is a very complex and old regulation. The refinements in Article 3.17 do not offer an exclusion, but rather practical guidance on some aspects of 3.15, as Charlie Whiting knows.
Nigel TOZZI: The test for rigidity is that provided for in 3.17-4, namely that the bodywork may deflect no more than 5 mm vertically, when a 500-Newton load is applied vertically to it, at a point which lies on the car centre line and 380 mm rearward of front-wheel centre line. That was the test, was it not?
Patrick LOWE: The test in 3.17 does not absolve one of full responsibility under 3.15.
Nigel TOZZI: That was the test, was it not?
Patrick LOWE: It is not an exclusive test, as to your compliance with 3.15.
Nigel TOZZI: That was the test, was it not?
Patrick LOWE: I have already answered that.
Nigel TOZZI: No, you have not. The answer is "yes", Mr Lowe, because I just read it from the regulation.
Patrick LOWE: That is your answer.
Nigel TOZZI: No, I read it from the regulation. And if you comply with the test, you are deemed to comply with 3.15.
Patrick LOWE: We could spend all day on Article 3.15, with all due respect.
Max MOSLEY: Could I intervene? The situation is as follows. Mr Tozzi means that it is completely wrong to describe Ferrari's system in Australia as illegal; it is one that passed the test as it then existed. You then quite rightly challenged this, and Charlie issued a reinterpretation of the test.
Patrick LOWE: I think the issue is being blurred again by Ferrari. There were two stages to the clarification from the FIA. In the first, it was said that "you will remove illegal devices". An illegal device is a mechanism with pivots, springs, and degrees of freedom that allows one to cynically exploit the behaviour required in 3.17, in contravention of 3.15. There was a further later clarification that changed the understanding for the test. Those are two separate issues. That is clear in my statements.
Max MOSLEY: I do not think that anyone on the World Council would seriously consider that the Ferrari device was illegal at the time, any more than the Renault mass damper before it was eliminated.
Nigel TOZZI: I am very grateful for that. It was important that this be clear, as these proceedings are apparently going to be made public. McLaren has repeatedly asserted, wrongly, that the Ferrari car was illegal, and it is appropriate that the world knows that it was not.
Patrick LOWE: I find that an extraordinary positioned: that something should be only illegal when it is clarified to be so.
Nigel TOZZI: Mr Lowe may find that extraordinary. You have said what you have said, so it is on the record.
Mr Lowe, what about the interesting question about the McLaren car? You tell us, in Paragraph 26, that when the testing was changed for the Spanish Grand Prix, the concept of McLaren's front floor attachment remained unchanged. Did the detail remain unchanged, Mr Lowe?
Patrick LOWE: The stiffness required by the test was increased.
Nigel TOZZI: You were using buckling stay, were you not?
Patrick LOWE: You clearly have not read my statement.
Nigel TOZZI: Oh, I have read it.
Patrick LOWE: That means you do not believe my statement, where I say that we did not use a buckling stay.
Nigel TOZZI: I have a series of photos - a very interesting series of photos - of your car, which show buckling stay, Mr Lowe.
Patrick LOWE: That is what you assume to be a buckling stay, but you fail to understand the behaviour it has.
Max MOSLEY: Can you help us, because I do not understand and perhaps others do not. If it is not a buckling stay, what is the proper description.
Patrick LOWE: It is a pre-buckled stay. It is already in the buckling mode before the start.
Buckling implies that it is stiff initially, then buckles. This means it would be very rigid at the start, then very soft, which would cynically exploit the behaviours in Article 3.17.
Nigel TOZZI: Your suggestion is that nothing on the pre-buckled stay was changed following the change of test by the FIA.
Patrick LOWE: I did not say that nothing was changed; I said that the concept remained the same. The characteristics were changed, because the stiffness requirement in 3.17 were changed.
Nigel TOZZI: Exactly. When I asked whether the detail had changed, I thought you said no.
Patrick LOWE: I said yes.
Nigel TOZZI: In other words, when the rule changed, it was not only Ferrari that had to change its car; McLaren did too.
Patrick LOWE: We changed the detail, as I stated a minute ago, but we did not change the concept.
Nigel TOZZI: It is the pot calling the kettle black.
Patrick LOWE: Those are your own words, and I think you know how you arrived at them.
flemke said:
jamieboy said:
flemke said:
You could be right, although I have not heard that anywhere.
What makes you think that the McLaren floor and most others flexed beyond the limit?
In the second McLaren-FIA transcript, Patrick Lowe said that McLaren changed the characteristics of their floor because the stiffness requirements were changed.What makes you think that the McLaren floor and most others flexed beyond the limit?
If they had to change the floor so that it remained stiff under an increased load than originally tested, I'm assuming that the original floor did not remain stiff under the increased load?
<the transcript>
jamieboy said:
flemke said:
jamieboy said:
flemke said:
You could be right, although I have not heard that anywhere.
What makes you think that the McLaren floor and most others flexed beyond the limit?
In the second McLaren-FIA transcript, Patrick Lowe said that McLaren changed the characteristics of their floor because the stiffness requirements were changed.What makes you think that the McLaren floor and most others flexed beyond the limit?
If they had to change the floor so that it remained stiff under an increased load than originally tested, I'm assuming that the original floor did not remain stiff under the increased load?
<the transcript>
Let us suppose that the actual max force on the floor at 300kph is 600-650 (whatever it is, we know now that actual max force must be a good bit less than the new testing parameter).
If McLaren and the other teams had made their floors so that they would be sufficiently rigid up to 700N, then that would have been fine - in actual use they would never have deflected beyond what they were allowed to deflect.
It seems that the Ferrari floor was designed to have a second level of flexure (via buckling stay) not far above the original test level - maybe 550N.
The way that I read it, the new test is so extreme (the FIA wanting never to get caught out on this point again) that even floors that were always intended to comply with the letter and spirit of the original rules would fail it.
(edited to change some figures)
Edited by flemke on Friday 21st December 13:49
35secToNuvolari said:
flemke said:
35secToNuvolari said:
What I meant is that most teams floors, including Mclaren's, flexed beyond the limit, and the decision to clarify the floor movement was, in part, a self-sacrificial act.
You could be right, although I have not heard that anywhere.What makes you think that the McLaren floor and most others flexed beyond the limit?
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57748
You can add Gascoyne to the list too.
And that Ferrari's floor was known about as early as Japan '06.
"Ferraris front splitter (part of the floor) is old news. See my 2006 brazilian technical review in the journal.
They raced it last year, I saw it in japan and asked the scrutineers about it. They knew about it and explained why it was there and under what rules it was allowed. "
Posted by reporter craig scarborough
http://forums.autosport.com/showthread.php?s=1aad5...
Furthermore, if the FIA already knew about the Ferrari system in '06, as one of the reports asserts, then why would the FIA ban the exact same system after Australia '07? Because the FIA only banned it when it was exposed to others, because Ferrari changed the system over the winter from legal to illegal, or because the FIA were themselves fooled until the McLaren query?
flemke said:
Let us suppose that the actual max force on the floor at 300kph is 600-650 (whatever it is, we know now that actual max force must be a good bit less than the new testing parameter).
If McLaren and the other teams had made their floors so that they would be sufficiently rigid up to 700N, then that would have been fine - in actual use they would never have deflected beyond what they were allowed to deflect.
That's certainly a plausible situation, with the caveat that we're simply guessing how much the McLaren floor flexed under any given load.If McLaren and the other teams had made their floors so that they would be sufficiently rigid up to 700N, then that would have been fine - in actual use they would never have deflected beyond what they were allowed to deflect.
You may be right that they designed it to be over-stiff, allowing them to pass the test with a 40% margin in reserve. I'd be surprised at them over-engineering it to such an extent, but I take your point.
Edited by jamieboy on Friday 21st December 14:04
I was only wondering why, if Mclaren's position on the matter now was the same one they held in '06, then why didn't they protest or seek clarification earlier? Mclaren are not that out of the loop. If journalists knew about Ferrari's floor in Japan, so did Mclaren. So when one imagines an environment where Mclaren and Ferrari are unlikely to give each other the benefit of the doubt, and Mclaren really held the opinion that Lowe expressed in the transcript, then one would think Mclaren would've acted after Japan, or Brazil, or over the winter. This is not a new controversy; it's been going on since '99. And if the matter had been talked about so extensively for eight years, and Charlie Whiting's instructions so clearly known, one would think that people in the paddock would be surprised when someone comes along with a damper or spring stuck to their floor. But Mclaren didn't protest at the first sign of it, and in the aftermath many F1 engineers essentially shrugged their shoulders and said, 'what's the big deal? Everyone at the front does it.'
The problem with using Lowe's testimony as Mclaren's official position is that it comes after the scrutineering changes. Their behavior before Australia could be seen as a contradiction to that position.
There are many grey areas that teams exploit, and it's not unreasonable to think that if another team is exploiting it better than you, then you gain a comparative advantage by getting the technology outlawed. Mclaren and Ferrari both used mass dampers prior to getting them banned. It doesn't mean they thought it was wrong the entire time. One could try to protest current grey areas such as the engine braking 'ABS' and the brake cooling wheel covers: "We wish to employ wheel covers whose primary purpose is to extend the boundary layer over the tire thus improving aerodynamic performance, with the secondary benefit of improved brake cooling." Or something similar. No way the FIA is gonna say yes to that.
So, I was just thinking about what reasonable explanations could account for their behavior prior to Australia and the paddock's general apathy about the issue. I just came up with one possible one: They saw the intricacy of Ferrari's floor and decided to try to get the loophole closed hoping they were less dependent on that feature than Ferrari and gain a comparative advantage.
The problem with using Lowe's testimony as Mclaren's official position is that it comes after the scrutineering changes. Their behavior before Australia could be seen as a contradiction to that position.
There are many grey areas that teams exploit, and it's not unreasonable to think that if another team is exploiting it better than you, then you gain a comparative advantage by getting the technology outlawed. Mclaren and Ferrari both used mass dampers prior to getting them banned. It doesn't mean they thought it was wrong the entire time. One could try to protest current grey areas such as the engine braking 'ABS' and the brake cooling wheel covers: "We wish to employ wheel covers whose primary purpose is to extend the boundary layer over the tire thus improving aerodynamic performance, with the secondary benefit of improved brake cooling." Or something similar. No way the FIA is gonna say yes to that.
So, I was just thinking about what reasonable explanations could account for their behavior prior to Australia and the paddock's general apathy about the issue. I just came up with one possible one: They saw the intricacy of Ferrari's floor and decided to try to get the loophole closed hoping they were less dependent on that feature than Ferrari and gain a comparative advantage.
flemke said:
35secToNuvolari said:
flemke said:
35secToNuvolari said:
What I meant is that most teams floors, including Mclaren's, flexed beyond the limit, and the decision to clarify the floor movement was, in part, a self-sacrificial act.
You could be right, although I have not heard that anywhere.What makes you think that the McLaren floor and most others flexed beyond the limit?
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57748
You can add Gascoyne to the list too.
And that Ferrari's floor was known about as early as Japan '06.
"Ferraris front splitter (part of the floor) is old news. See my 2006 brazilian technical review in the journal.
They raced it last year, I saw it in japan and asked the scrutineers about it. They knew about it and explained why it was there and under what rules it was allowed. "
Posted by reporter craig scarborough
http://forums.autosport.com/showthread.php?s=1aad5...
flemke said:
Furthermore, if the FIA already knew about the Ferrari system in '06, as one of the reports asserts, then why would the FIA ban the exact same system after Australia '07? Because the FIA only banned it when it was exposed to others, because Ferrari changed the system over the winter from legal to illegal, or because the FIA were themselves fooled until the McLaren query?
Why did the FIA ban the exact same mass-damper that they knew Renault used over two seasons? Because someone made the argument that it should be.35secToNuvolari said:
I was only wondering why, if Mclaren's position on the matter now was the same one they held in '06, then why didn't they protest or seek clarification earlier? Mclaren are not that out of the loop. If journalists knew about Ferrari's floor in Japan, so did Mclaren. So when one imagines an environment where Mclaren and Ferrari are unlikely to give each other the benefit of the doubt, and Mclaren really held the opinion that Lowe expressed in the transcript, then one would think Mclaren would've acted after Japan, or Brazil, or over the winter. This is not a new controversy; it's been going on since '99. And if the matter had been talked about so extensively for eight years, and Charlie Whiting's instructions so clearly known, one would think that people in the paddock would be surprised when someone comes along with a damper or spring stuck to their floor. But Mclaren didn't protest at the first sign of it, and in the aftermath many F1 engineers essentially shrugged their shoulders and said, 'what's the big deal? Everyone at the front does it.'
The problem with using Lowe's testimony as Mclaren's official position is that it comes after the scrutineering changes. Their behavior before Australia could be seen as a contradiction to that position.
There are many grey areas that teams exploit, and it's not unreasonable to think that if another team is exploiting it better than you, then you gain a comparative advantage by getting the technology outlawed. Mclaren and Ferrari both used mass dampers prior to getting them banned. It doesn't mean they thought it was wrong the entire time. One could try to protest current grey areas such as the engine braking 'ABS' and the brake cooling wheel covers: "We wish to employ wheel covers whose primary purpose is to extend the boundary layer over the tire thus improving aerodynamic performance, with the secondary benefit of improved brake cooling." Or something similar. No way the FIA is gonna say yes to that.
So, I was just thinking about what reasonable explanations could account for their behavior prior to Australia and the paddock's general apathy about the issue. I just came up with one possible one: They saw the intricacy of Ferrari's floor and decided to try to get the loophole closed hoping they were less dependent on that feature than Ferrari and gain a comparative advantage.
Taz,The problem with using Lowe's testimony as Mclaren's official position is that it comes after the scrutineering changes. Their behavior before Australia could be seen as a contradiction to that position.
There are many grey areas that teams exploit, and it's not unreasonable to think that if another team is exploiting it better than you, then you gain a comparative advantage by getting the technology outlawed. Mclaren and Ferrari both used mass dampers prior to getting them banned. It doesn't mean they thought it was wrong the entire time. One could try to protest current grey areas such as the engine braking 'ABS' and the brake cooling wheel covers: "We wish to employ wheel covers whose primary purpose is to extend the boundary layer over the tire thus improving aerodynamic performance, with the secondary benefit of improved brake cooling." Or something similar. No way the FIA is gonna say yes to that.
So, I was just thinking about what reasonable explanations could account for their behavior prior to Australia and the paddock's general apathy about the issue. I just came up with one possible one: They saw the intricacy of Ferrari's floor and decided to try to get the loophole closed hoping they were less dependent on that feature than Ferrari and gain a comparative advantage.
We are definitely not communicating here about the different stages of the floor affair, but that may be my fault. No probs.
Wrt the mass damper, there was a lot of talk at the time that McLaren were the first to raise the question of its legality. When it was banned, however, Dennis was adamant that McLaren were not the team that had protested it. Others suggested that the protest had come from Ferrari, which would be logical.
My surmise was that McLaren thought that the device was questionable, but informally queried the FIA, who said that they thought it was okay. McLaren then tried to devise a mass damper of their own (maybe using the J-damper as described in the Renault hearing, or maybe first doing something that was more conventional). Later in the game, I'd guess, Ferrari made the formal protest.
Cheers.
35secToNuvolari said:
Why did the FIA ban the exact same mass-damper that they knew Renault used over two seasons? Because someone made the argument that it should be.
I'd say a certain someone, whose team was in the process of not winning the Championships for the second year on the trot, having dominated the sport for the previous five years.
kevin ritson said:
You either have a very blinkered view or are naïve in the extreme if you think that politics have had very little effect on the season. After all, which topic has dominated this forum for several months?
If McLaren let the politics affect them (this year or next), then that is a failing on their part.I maintain Ferrari did a fantastic job in winning the drivers title this year for the reasons I first mentioned.
To reply to Flemke's point about FA would have won the title if he had not been demoted by 5 places/10 places? (can't remeber now). Well maybe. But he may also have crashed at the first corner in that race if he had not been demoted.
I maintain that the FIA will tailor punishments depending upon the title race.
ie FA got his grid slot demotion because it was earlier in the season, and so did not ruin
the build up to the very close season finale. I think McLaren should have got a 2+ race ban
for their actions. But they were VERY lucky, because the season was building to a very
tight finish, and viewer interest was very high, there's no way the FIA were going to damage
the interests (income) of the sport by imposing a 2+ race ban and therefore more or less handing
the title to Ferrari. So in my view McLaren benefitted from a light punishment at the potential cost to Ferrari.
Bitter'n'Twisted said:
[b]I think McLaren should have got a 2+ race ban
for their actions.[/b] But they were VERY lucky, because the season was building to a very
tight finish, and viewer interest was very high, there's no way the FIA were going to damage
the interests (income) of the sport by imposing a 2+ race ban and therefore more or less handing
the title to Ferrari. So in my view McLaren benefitted from a light punishment at the potential cost to Ferrari.
Which "actions" were these?
Edited by flemke on Sunday 23 December 21:08
flemke said:
Bitter'n'Twisted said:
[b]I think McLaren should have got a 2+ race ban
for their actions.[/b] But they were VERY lucky, because the season was building to a very
tight finish, and viewer interest was very high, there's no way the FIA were going to damage
the interests (income) of the sport by imposing a 2+ race ban and therefore more or less handing
the title to Ferrari. So in my view McLaren benefitted from a light punishment at the potential cost to Ferrari.
Which "actions" were these?
I for one am getting tired of Ferrari 'fanboys' crying about McLaren cheating when they clearly haven't bothered to read up on what actually happened and I've lost count of the number of times I've read the same arguments worded slightly differently.
Can we have a McLaren cheated amnesty for 2008 please?
Edited by MrKipling43 on Monday 24th December 10:20
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff