If the diffuser appeal had succeeded...

[Dave B]

...would Williams CEO Andy Parr have a point?

He claims that the very technicality which Ferrari were using to argue that the DD's were illegal was in fact the same point they've used in the past to argue that their own cars were legal! :crazy:


Ferrari's case was that you could only have one or at best only one [vertical transition] 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.

Source: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74516

He's careful to clarify that he's not calling past Ferraris (or Renaults) illegal, merely pointing out the hypocrisy of their methods: crying foul when they're beaten but quite happy to take an advantage when it suits them.

[F1boat]

Very good point. They think that they should win all the time, that's all. Now Red Bull showed that it is not just the DD, which are problematic for them. Several teams just were brave, others not.

...would Williams CEO Andy Parr have a point?

He claims that the very technicality which Ferrari were using to argue that the DD's were illegal was in fact the same point they've used in the past to argue that their own cars were legal! :crazy:



Source: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74516


He's careful to clarify that he's not calling past Ferraris (or Renaults) illegal, merely pointing out the hypocrisy of their methods: crying foul when they're beaten but quite happy to take an advantage when it suits them.

But since the diffuser appeal wasn't succesful, it proves that the Ferrari was legal....thereby pissing on the chips of tifosi-hating mac-lovers everywhere.


But you weren't interested in that....quel surprise!!!!

[Dave B]

But since the diffuser appeal wasn't succesful, it proves that the Ferrari was legal....thereby pissing on the chips of tifosi-hating mac-lovers everywhere.


But you weren't interested in that....quel surprise!!!!
But if you read what I wrote, I made it clear that Parr never claimed the Ferrari was illegal. He was merely pointing out - as am I - the hypocitical attitude of certain teams when they find themselves at the wrong end of the points table.

But if you read what I wrote, I made it clear that Parr never claimed the Ferrari was illegal. He was merely pointing out - as am I - the hypocitical attitude of certain teams when they find themselves at the wrong end of the points table.

Sorry, but Parr did claim that the Ferrari's were illegal and has since tried to clarify his statement.

"Williams CEO Adam Parr has insisted he never meant to imply that Ferrari and Renault had been using an illegal car for years in Formula 1, as he moved to clarify remarks he made at this week's FIA International Court of Appeal hearing.

Ferrari team principal Stefano Domenicali and Flavio Briatore have been upset by suggestions Parr made in the Paris hearing, where he stated that if rivals thought his team's diffuser was in breach of the regulations, then they had to accept their own machines had been illegal for years."

Clarifying afterwards means, quite obviously, that he originally stated that the Ferrari's were illegal. As that Autosport report clearly shows.

Can you read? Evidently not.

[ioan]

As far as I remember Ferrari were asked to change parts on their cars several times for not being in the spirit of the rules.
This time however interesting enough the spirit of the rules disappeared all of a sudden.

Parr shouldl stop being a hypocrite, we all know what he said in court and it's way to late to twist the words.
He could maybe be honest, for once, and tell us what exactly were Wiliams trying to achieve while protesting just for the sake of it in Oz against Ferrari and Red Bull? Making themselves look like idiots maybe?!

[F1boat]

I think that Parr wanted to say that if their cars are illegal, so are the cars of Ferrari and Renault in the previous year.
And I agree.
All these cars, however, are LEGAL and innovative.

[ioan]

I think that Parr wanted to say that if their cars are illegal, so are the cars of Ferrari and Renault in the previous year.


If that was the case maybe Parr should learn proper English before open his slot.
However I doubt he made a mistake, he was fully aware of the BS he was talking.

[christophulus]

"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."



He added: "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."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74516

Easy to misinterpret but I agree with Parr. You can't "interpret" the rules one way for years then suddenly change your mind!

[Dave B]

Clarifying afterwards means, quite obviously, that he originally stated that the Ferrari's were illegal. As that Autosport report clearly shows.

Can you read? Evidently not.
Ahhh, I see. It turns out that "clarifying" means changing your mind. I understand now. Thanks for enlightening me. I'll keep that in mind next time I try to read anything complicated. One lives and learns.

:dozey:

[Valve Bounce]

If the diffuser appeal had succeeded, it wouldn't have failed.

I'll keep that in mind next time I try to read anything complicated.

I'd stick to the Daily Star if I were you.....or maybe "Nuts" at a push.

[Sonic]

If the diffuser appeal had succeeded, it wouldn't have failed.

FACT!

[Dave B]

I'd stick to the Daily Star if I were you.....or maybe "Nuts" at a push.
Thanks for the advice. I'll be in touch later: there's an article about Jade Goody which uses some long words I don't understand. :D

[Robinho]

Sorry, but Parr did claim that the Ferrari's were illegal and has since tried to clarify his statement.

"Williams CEO Adam Parr has insisted he never meant to imply that Ferrari and Renault had been using an illegal car for years in Formula 1, as he moved to clarify remarks he made at this week's FIA International Court of Appeal hearing.

Ferrari team principal Stefano Domenicali and Flavio Briatore have been upset by suggestions Parr made in the Paris hearing, where he stated that if rivals thought his team's diffuser was in breach of the regulations, then they had to accept their own machines had been illegal for years."

Clarifying afterwards means, quite obviously, that he originally stated that the Ferrari's were illegal. As that Autosport report clearly shows.

Can you read? Evidently not.

if Parr had claimed the Ferrari's and Renaults were illegal then he was also claiming his own team's car was illegal, as they were using the same interpretation as he was pointing out had been used in previous years. trying to win an appeal by claiming your car is illegal is not a bright move, and i don't think that is what he said at all, purely that should the DD's be illegal then surely so are cars of recent history that have used the same intepretation

[woody2goody]

All the protesting teams digusted me, and to be honest they wouldn't have given a damn if Brawn and co. were at the back of the grid. And they include some of my favourite teams which annoyed me more.

And like it has been said before, Ross Brawn offered to close the loophole in the law, the others refused, and figuratively speaking have been punished by Williams, Toyota and Brawn building better cars than theirs, except from possibly RBR, and in the dry I'm even doubtful that they are better than the other three.

[Garry Walker]

All the protesting teams digusted me, and to be honest they wouldn't have given a damn if Brawn and co. were at the back of the grid. .

Why should they? This is not charity racing.