Discussion
Starting to get confused with all the threads about who did what but!
Ferrari win in Oz get lots of points for Kimi and the team with an illegal aero part on the car, the FIA choose to turn a blind eye to it and say take it off and dont do it again.
Later in the season Mclaren get given details of what happened and the drawings, the FIA then fine them and take their constructors points away for having the information and decide this constitutes cheating, and still do nothing to Ferrari.
Then in the last race two teams cheat by breaking the fuel rules and the FIA say that's ok, but fine Mclaren for a tyre descrepancy in free practice.
Kimi (who i think is great) wins the WDC by 1 point, mainly due to the points he won in Australia at the biggining of the season.
Can someone please explain
Ferrari win in Oz get lots of points for Kimi and the team with an illegal aero part on the car, the FIA choose to turn a blind eye to it and say take it off and dont do it again.
Later in the season Mclaren get given details of what happened and the drawings, the FIA then fine them and take their constructors points away for having the information and decide this constitutes cheating, and still do nothing to Ferrari.
Then in the last race two teams cheat by breaking the fuel rules and the FIA say that's ok, but fine Mclaren for a tyre descrepancy in free practice.
Kimi (who i think is great) wins the WDC by 1 point, mainly due to the points he won in Australia at the biggining of the season.
Can someone please explain
Bit of a simplified version! As with all these things there are many grey areas and very involved technical details. I wouldn't put any of the teams above corruption - the stakes are too high, the egos too big and the rewards and desire to win too great.
There's something very suspicious about the whole dossier business and the $100m fine seemed excessively harsh penalty, but as cheating goes that is in a different league to a slightly iffy barge board which was rectified following clarification from the FIA.
But cheating, controversy, politics and accusations of bias are all part of F1, like it or not.
Looking back over the list of past champions though, I don't think any of them are unworthy, even though luck, and the bad luck of others, has played a part in all of them.
There's something very suspicious about the whole dossier business and the $100m fine seemed excessively harsh penalty, but as cheating goes that is in a different league to a slightly iffy barge board which was rectified following clarification from the FIA.
But cheating, controversy, politics and accusations of bias are all part of F1, like it or not.
Looking back over the list of past champions though, I don't think any of them are unworthy, even though luck, and the bad luck of others, has played a part in all of them.
flemke said:
If the FIA stewards hadn't demoted Alonso five places there, he would have won the title
If FA hadn't driven off the circuit at Fuji he would have won the title.If LH hadn't driven into the world's smallest gravel trap at Shanghai he would have won the title.
If LH hadn't gone off at the Nurburgring he would have won the title.
Regardless of whether the FIA 'let' Ferrari win with an illegal car the fact remains that McLaren made a monumental mess of the season. To come away with absolutely sweet jack shit is quite remarkable, given the superiority of the car, the (sometimes) utter incompetence of other teams' race strategy and the biggest budget in the history of F1 ($400m has been quoted).
It should never have happened that coming into the last race of the season KR was still in with a shout for the title. I guess that's the price to pay when you don't (officially) have a number 1 and 2 driver, but $400m is a heavy price to pay for no return.
GarrettMacD said:
flemke said:
If the FIA stewards hadn't demoted Alonso five places there, he would have won the title
If FA hadn't driven off the circuit at Fuji he would have won the title.If LH hadn't driven into the world's smallest gravel trap at Shanghai he would have won the title.
If LH hadn't gone off at the Nurburgring he would have won the title.
Regardless of whether the FIA 'let' Ferrari win with an illegal car the fact remains that McLaren made a monumental mess of the season. To come away with absolutely sweet jack shit is quite remarkable, given the superiority of the car, the (sometimes) utter incompetence of other teams' race strategy and the biggest budget in the history of F1 ($400m has been quoted).
It should never have happened that coming into the last race of the season KR was still in with a shout for the title. I guess that's the price to pay when you don't (officially) have a number 1 and 2 driver, but $400m is a heavy price to pay for no return.
GarrettMacD said:
It should never have happened that coming into the last race of the season KR was still in with a shout for the title. I guess that's the price to pay when you don't (officially) have a number 1 and 2 driver, but $400m is a heavy price to pay for no return.
I will always support a team that allows its drivers to race, regardless of whether they lose a championship because of this policy. What would you rather have, a season like the one we've just had or another 2004?Adrian W said:
I know all of that, but my question was about cheating!
Well, the simple answer is that the FIA *appear* to show a bias towards Ferrari and against McLaren... and pretty much any other team that threatens Ferrari success. That much is obvious.The point I was trying to make was that McLaren have been far superior to Ferrari this year, and so, in spite of the FIA bias, they should have won the Drivers title by Shanghai at the latest. They can't blame the FIA for all the cock-ups and the in-fighting between their drivers. It's the classic 1986 season all over again. Mansell fights Piquet in the superior Williams, Prost takes the title by staying clean, keeping his mouth shut and doing the best he can in the races that matter.
kevin ritson said:
GarrettMacD said:
It should never have happened that coming into the last race of the season KR was still in with a shout for the title. I guess that's the price to pay when you don't (officially) have a number 1 and 2 driver, but $400m is a heavy price to pay for no return.
I will always support a team that allows its drivers to race, regardless of whether they lose a championship because of this policy. What would you rather have, a season like the one we've just had or another 2004?What is clear is that Ferrari knew that the testing method would not show that their floor was in breach of the regulations. Therefore this was a clear case of deliberate cheating. The planning for this cheating would have involved a number of high level Ferrari officials who would have had to conspire together in the full knowledge that it was cheating. If Stepney had not, for whatever reason, told RD about it, one would assume that they would have continue to cheat until they were discovered. Discovered is an odd word to use I suppose as Stepney has alleged that he sent details of the illegal floor to the FIA via Whiting.
The Stepneygate debacle has been fully reported by the FIA and, according to them, by their own admission, Pedro de la Rosa, Alonso and Coughlan colluded together in testing using data from Ferrari, which came via Stepney. Further, they had some other information.
By the FIA's own admission, there is no evidence that other officials or employees of McLaren International, which includes Ron Dennis knew of the cheating by their three employees. However, the FIA did not believe this so punished RD and McLI although, some time later, Mosely did say that he did not believe that RD knew of the admitted cheating by PDLA, FA and Coughlan.
So, just to make things clear, it seems that Ferrari's cheating, with the full knowledge of the designers and development engineers and, one would assume, the hierachy was not felt worthy of any penalty, not even them losing the points they gained from using an illegal car.
In the same way, the three McLI employees who, by the admission of PDLR and FA, made use of Ferrari derived information were not punished whereas McLI, against whom there is, by the FIA's own admission, no evidence, and were unlikely to gain any advantage from the information in any case, were felt worthy of the most swingeing punishement over metered out by the FIA.
I hope this is clear to you as it's bewildered me.
The Stepneygate debacle has been fully reported by the FIA and, according to them, by their own admission, Pedro de la Rosa, Alonso and Coughlan colluded together in testing using data from Ferrari, which came via Stepney. Further, they had some other information.
By the FIA's own admission, there is no evidence that other officials or employees of McLaren International, which includes Ron Dennis knew of the cheating by their three employees. However, the FIA did not believe this so punished RD and McLI although, some time later, Mosely did say that he did not believe that RD knew of the admitted cheating by PDLA, FA and Coughlan.
So, just to make things clear, it seems that Ferrari's cheating, with the full knowledge of the designers and development engineers and, one would assume, the hierachy was not felt worthy of any penalty, not even them losing the points they gained from using an illegal car.
In the same way, the three McLI employees who, by the admission of PDLR and FA, made use of Ferrari derived information were not punished whereas McLI, against whom there is, by the FIA's own admission, no evidence, and were unlikely to gain any advantage from the information in any case, were felt worthy of the most swingeing punishement over metered out by the FIA.
I hope this is clear to you as it's bewildered me.
Derek Smith said:
The Stepneygate debacle has been fully reported by the FIA and, according to them, by their own admission, Pedro de la Rosa, Alonso and Coughlan colluded together in testing using data from Ferrari, which came via Stepney. Further, they had some other information.
By the FIA's own admission, there is no evidence that other officials or employees of McLaren International, which includes Ron Dennis knew of the cheating by their three employees. However, the FIA did not believe this so punished RD and McLI although, some time later, Mosely did say that he did not believe that RD knew of the admitted cheating by PDLA, FA and Coughlan.
But even that is circumstantial evidence. the emails only showed that PDLR and FA had asked Stepney about certain aspects of "the red cars". What is suspect is that the only thing discussed in any detail was weight distribution, which can be calculated by watching a car being lifted off a circuit.By the FIA's own admission, there is no evidence that other officials or employees of McLaren International, which includes Ron Dennis knew of the cheating by their three employees. However, the FIA did not believe this so punished RD and McLI although, some time later, Mosely did say that he did not believe that RD knew of the admitted cheating by PDLA, FA and Coughlan.
And still, no one has thought it prudent to ask Stepney what he got in return for all this information! I doubt he did it for free!
Also, he wasn't present at the FIA hearing, which is a bit like holding a murder case without the murderer. And for god's sale that was an analogy, not a simile, so please don't accusing me of comparing what he did to murder.
Lets not forget Macs were also fined for having a different gear casing at one GP . The thing that gets up my nose is the double standards that the FIA seem to apply . When it comes to anything to do with the red cars they must have someone like Graham ( 3 Yellows) Pole doing the ruling!
Until things change with the FIA we are never going to get a level playing field.
Mind you it could get worse as Max may retire and JT take his place.
Until things change with the FIA we are never going to get a level playing field.
Mind you it could get worse as Max may retire and JT take his place.
Derek Smith said:
What is clear is that Ferrari knew that the testing method would not show that their floor was in breach of the regulations. Therefore this was a clear case of deliberate cheating.
How can it be cheating if it passes the tests?, every team designs there car to find loop holes in the tests/regulations, they found a loop hole, so the powers that be closed the loop hole, this is not cheating, there fore they were not punished.stephen300o said:
Derek Smith said:
What is clear is that Ferrari knew that the testing method would not show that their floor was in breach of the regulations. Therefore this was a clear case of deliberate cheating.
How can it be cheating if it passes the tests?, every team designs there car to find loop holes in the tests/regulations, they found a loop hole, so the powers that be closed the loop hole, this is not cheating, there fore they were not punished.What about Renault last year with their TMDs? They were perfectly legal, but the FIA decided they should be punished, even though the technology was undetectable. Still, Ferrari somehow got their hands on info regarding the programme - wonder how they did that?
You can't say that because something is undetectable, it's not cheating. That's madness.
stephen300o said:
Derek Smith said:
What is clear is that Ferrari knew that the testing method would not show that their floor was in breach of the regulations. Therefore this was a clear case of deliberate cheating.
How can it be cheating if it passes the tests?, every team designs there car to find loop holes in the tests/regulations, they found a loop hole, so the powers that be closed the loop hole, this is not cheating, there fore they were not punished.Whilst I agree that the regulations are there for interpretation, or misinterpretation, this was not a case of loopholes. It was, quite clearly, a deliberate attempt to break the rules. It's a bit like driving through a speed camera at 170mph in a 30mph limit where the camera does not read speeds over 160mph. The fact that the electronics are limited does not make the speed legal.
This was, quite clearly, cheating in anyone's book. The testing method was naff, but hardly a loophole. It's like the bankrobbers in the old days who commit crimes then run off to the Costas because there was no extradition. Still a crime but they can't be punished.
MrKipling43 said:
stephen300o said:
Derek Smith said:
What is clear is that Ferrari knew that the testing method would not show that their floor was in breach of the regulations. Therefore this was a clear case of deliberate cheating.
How can it be cheating if it passes the tests?, every team designs there car to find loop holes in the tests/regulations, they found a loop hole, so the powers that be closed the loop hole, this is not cheating, there fore they were not punished.What about Renault last year with their TMDs? They were perfectly legal, but the FIA decided they should be punished, even though the technology was undetectable. Still, Ferrari somehow got their hands on info regarding the programme - wonder how they did that?
You can't say that because something is undetectable, it's not cheating. That's madness.
Derek Smith said:
stephen300o said:
Derek Smith said:
What is clear is that Ferrari knew that the testing method would not show that their floor was in breach of the regulations. Therefore this was a clear case of deliberate cheating.
How can it be cheating if it passes the tests?, every team designs there car to find loop holes in the tests/regulations, they found a loop hole, so the powers that be closed the loop hole, this is not cheating, there fore they were not punished.Whilst I agree that the regulations are there for interpretation, or misinterpretation, this was not a case of loopholes. It was, quite clearly, a deliberate attempt to break the rules. It's a bit like driving through a speed camera at 170mph in a 30mph limit where the camera does not read speeds over 160mph. The fact that the electronics are limited does not make the speed legal.
This was, quite clearly, cheating in anyone's book. The testing method was naff, but hardly a loophole. It's like the bankrobbers in the old days who commit crimes then run off to the Costas because there was no extradition. Still a crime but they can't be punished.
Stephen's reasoning would make sense, except that it is not based on all the facts, which the FIA did not publicise at the time. I myself only came to understand them by reading Paddy Lowe's testimony at the second hearing. His trenchant explanation made cleared how cynically and disingenuously Ferrari broke the rules.
Ferrari and its defenders have relied on the fact that the rule relating directly to floor movement specified that it could move X mm at Y Nm of force. Their argument goes: "It passed that FIA test, so it was legal."
The fatal flaw in that argument is that this rule was not the only rule that governed the floor movement.
The floor's movement was also, and always, governed by the over-arching rule that requires any aerodynamic device attached to the body of the car to be fixed.
Therefore, the specification for floor movement was an exception, the limits to which were "X mm and Y Nm of force".
That is to say, the floor regulation was not, "You can do what you like to make the floor move, so long as that movement passes a test of X mm at Y Nm of force."
To the contrary, the floor regulation was, in paraphrase, "The floor may not move at all, except to the extent that, at Y Nm, it may move as much as X mm."
Any movement beyond X mm was always illegal, because it contravened the overarching rule on aero movement, and was not protected by the single exception at Y Nm of force.
The sad fact is - we are all arguing about who cheated - who should of been penalized - how corrupt the FIA is
and this was probably the best racing season we've had in 20 years
The comparison is the Tour De France - absolute nonsense - they are all cheating the greater or lesser degrees - but at least they don't have the same commericial and governing body relationship that the FIA and FOM have
btw - how many people know that when Max took over the presidency of the FIA - bernie made this huge noise that Max needed a private plane for his use at anytime - funding was pushed through - any guess who sold him the plane
yep Bernie did - it was Bernie's old plane !!!!
This is the season that should of never have happened
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff