Williams say Ferrari have been running illegal cars.
Discussion
www.planetf1.com said:
Williams CEO Adam Parr has attempted to clear up the confusion surrounding claims that he accused Ferrari of racing illegal cars over the past decade, saying in fact it was the Scuderia who stated that their own cars were illegal.
Speaking during Tuesday's Court of Appeal hearing, Parr reportedly stated that both Ferrari and Renault, then under the Benetton name, had won Championships using cars that were outside the Formula One regulations. This sparked some anger from Ferrari team boss Stefano Domenicali, who said he was "astonished" to hear Parr's thoughts on Ferrari's Championship-winning cars.
Now in an attempt to clarify his comments, Parr has explained that it was actually Ferrari who declared their own cars to be illegal based on their arguments in the diffuser hearing.
"I think that there has been a very fundamental misunderstanding of what happened in the court on Tuesday," the Williams CEO told Autosport.
"Part of the case presented against us related to what we call as the use of multiple vertical transitions. Essentially, you have to have a reference plane, which is like the plank, and 50mm above that you have the step planes. One of the key issues in the case was: when do you have to have a transition between those two?
"Essentially you have to have a vertical transition between the two when the step plane is visible directly above the periphery of the reference plane. Where you don't, it is explicit that you don't have to have one. So one of the key issues in the case was that if you don't have to have one at certain points then by definition you can have many transitions.
"Ferrari's case was that you could only have one or at best only one on each side. The problem that they had was that for many years cars have had multiple vertical transitions because at the front, where they have turning vanes or bargeboards, they have had a slot in that transition that creates more than one.
"So, they actually said in their submissions that on a strict interpretation of their case, their cars were illegal. Then they gave various reasons why that should not matter, but they said in their submissions and in their evidence, by their interpretation of the rules, that those cars were illegal.
"So, therefore, in our case, we said: one of the reasons why you should not accept this argument is because it would mean that, as Ferrari have said; their cars have been illegal for years winning 11 championships.
"To be absolutely clear, it was never our case that their cars were illegal. It was, if anything, their case. So we rejected that as being quite wrong.
"I want to be absolutely clear, on the record, that we have never said and we do not believe that for one minute either the Ferrari cars, or Renault cars, or anyone else's cars, for the last eight years have been illegal. What we say is that they, and we, have used the same principles for eight or nine years."
Speaking during Tuesday's Court of Appeal hearing, Parr reportedly stated that both Ferrari and Renault, then under the Benetton name, had won Championships using cars that were outside the Formula One regulations. This sparked some anger from Ferrari team boss Stefano Domenicali, who said he was "astonished" to hear Parr's thoughts on Ferrari's Championship-winning cars.
Now in an attempt to clarify his comments, Parr has explained that it was actually Ferrari who declared their own cars to be illegal based on their arguments in the diffuser hearing.
"I think that there has been a very fundamental misunderstanding of what happened in the court on Tuesday," the Williams CEO told Autosport.
"Part of the case presented against us related to what we call as the use of multiple vertical transitions. Essentially, you have to have a reference plane, which is like the plank, and 50mm above that you have the step planes. One of the key issues in the case was: when do you have to have a transition between those two?
"Essentially you have to have a vertical transition between the two when the step plane is visible directly above the periphery of the reference plane. Where you don't, it is explicit that you don't have to have one. So one of the key issues in the case was that if you don't have to have one at certain points then by definition you can have many transitions.
"Ferrari's case was that you could only have one or at best only one on each side. The problem that they had was that for many years cars have had multiple vertical transitions because at the front, where they have turning vanes or bargeboards, they have had a slot in that transition that creates more than one.
"So, they actually said in their submissions that on a strict interpretation of their case, their cars were illegal. Then they gave various reasons why that should not matter, but they said in their submissions and in their evidence, by their interpretation of the rules, that those cars were illegal.
"So, therefore, in our case, we said: one of the reasons why you should not accept this argument is because it would mean that, as Ferrari have said; their cars have been illegal for years winning 11 championships.
"To be absolutely clear, it was never our case that their cars were illegal. It was, if anything, their case. So we rejected that as being quite wrong.
"I want to be absolutely clear, on the record, that we have never said and we do not believe that for one minute either the Ferrari cars, or Renault cars, or anyone else's cars, for the last eight years have been illegal. What we say is that they, and we, have used the same principles for eight or nine years."
paulrockliffe said:
They're saying exactly the opposite; Ferrari's car was legal, so ours is too. It's been worded the opposite way, "If our car is illegal, so was yours." to attack the Ferrari moral position on the current argument, but that doesn't change the implication of their argument.
thats the way it seems to me: Parr was saying that if Ferrari could define the reference planes flexibly on one part of the car, then it was fair game for others to do the same. Which seems fair enough - especially as I think there was something on Autosport ages ago that suggested that the concept (of being clever with where and how you define the dimensions) has been common practice for years!sour grapes from Ferrari et al
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff