(WRC Australia) Loeb's Citroen c4 wrc under investigation!!!!

[Francis44]

Sebastien Loeb's Rally Australia victory could be in doubt, AUTOSPORT has learned. An FIA spokesperson has confirmed that the world champion's Citroen C4 is being investigated for a possible technical infringement.
The stewards are currently meeting to discuss the matter, with sources indicating that a decision will be made "within the hour".
Loeb ended a four-rally losing streak by beating his title rival Mikko Hirvonen to victory in this weekend's event.
The result also narrowed Hirvonen's lead over Loeb in the championship to just one point with two rounds to go.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78378

[Psycho!]

What????WRC follows F1 STEPS...??

[Xsara Fan]

At the post-event scrutineering all(!) Citroen Total crews has some problems with non-homologation parts at the steering. For the moment there are no decisions but... Stewards more than an hour can`t decide what to do. My friend now stands near Stewards room and hear all talks ;) Now stewards talking about 1 minute penalty for all(!!!!) Citroen drivers.

[Allyc85]

Been refreshing Autosport.com like mad the last few minutes waiting for more news!

[TMorel]

I desperately want Loeb and Elena to win the championship, but not if they're aren't playing fair.

1min penalty sounds odd. I can think of other examples of much more severe penalties, and as even 1min will scupper the championship they might as well go the whole hog and give a more appropriate and harsher penalty.

[Mirek]

Using non-homologated parts should be penalized by disqualifficitation not just by some penalties. It doesn't matter what part is it if it isn't homologated. If a non-homologated component was found in some private car, the crew would be excluded for sure.

[Psycho!]

I still remember the 5 minute penalty for Ford,because of the thinner windows...

[Xsara Fan]

UPDATE :)
There is a non-homologation spring at the steering in all Citroen C4 WRC`s.
For the moment Stewards room is the most popular place - Mikko & JML came here and wait the results of the stewards meeting...

[TMorel]

wasn't the thinner windows officially down as a safety penalty.

I was thinking McRaes waterpump exclusion from the Monte when even the FIA said it didnt give any advantage, but rules are rules (most of the time)

[Xsara Fan]

UPDATE #2.
1 minute penalty. AFAIK for all 3 Citroen`s.

[Mirek]

Where is some spring in the speering? I can't imagine...

[Psycho!]

The standings on WRC.COM have been amended as well...

[White Sauron]

Nonsense... They impose 5 minute penalties for thinner windows and 1 minute penalty for the part, which has a direct influence on handling of the car...

[Xsara Fan]

WRC.com is very fast today... http://wrc.com/jsp/index.jsp?lnk=408&season=2009&rally_id=AUS
But where is Conrad?

[SubaruNorway]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78382

[Barreis]

Mr Quesnel..

[Mirek]

Hmm... they weren't excluded for non-homologated rollbar mounting. That's true shame. In this case exclusion is the only possible punishement but obviously not in case of Citroën...

[Psycho!]

May we see a reaction from Ford then?

[julkki]

Nonsense... They impose 5 minute penalties for thinner windows and 1 minute penalty for the part, which has a direct influence on handling of the car...

Exactly right! In this kind of event the quality and stenght of anti-roll bar is really important. I belive that Ford and Citroen will never get equal judges from FIA :S

[kolvas]

]Hmm... they weren't excluded for non-homologated rollbar mounting. That's true shame. In this case exclusion is the only possible punishement but obviously not in case of Citroën...

When it´s French team FIA doesn´t use the same rules as they usually do.
There are numerous accations when FIA looked between their fingers how they apply rules

[bennizw]

I believe this was just the thing we needed to see the championship go right down to Wales Rally GB!

[jens]

FIA probably wanted to keep the championship fight alive somehow - hence no DQ...

[Helstar]

Bah ! I wonder... did Citroen guys think they'll get past this ? Let's change the spring, nobody will see it (or else) ... ?

Very strange to have now a 2007 title handed to Loeb and now the 2009 one to Hirvonen (maybe ^^), but since the 1986 Markku Alen title robbed I'm not surprised by anything, ever.

[N.O.T]

its going to be a great finale...

[Ghostwalker]

sh*it well Congrats to Hirvonen then to the 2009 Title. not that i think he deserves it.

[Xsara Fan]

sh*it well Congrats to Hirvonen then to the 2009 Title. not that i think he deserves it.

Hmmm... I don`t think that Loeb & Citroen will give title to Hirvonen without fight. It will be a great end of a season...

[J4MIE]

sh*it well Congrats to Hirvonen then to the 2009 Title. not that i think he deserves it.

It is far from over yet.

[alleskids]

Deserving a title is also about finishing a rally (in the points), and if Loeb does fail in that and Hirvonen succeeds in that, then Hirvone deserves the title. Mikko finished higher in point more often then Loeb , so he is the champion then. besides, Loeb has been WRC champion for 5 times in a row. The hard time of winning is not winning anymore.

[RS]

Deserving a title is also about finishing a rally (in the points), and if Loeb does fail in that and Hirvonen succeeds in that, then Hirvone deserves the title. Mikko finished higher in point more often then Loeb , so he is the champion then. besides, Loeb has been WRC champion for 5 times in a row. The hard time of winning is not winning anymore.

You are right of course, it's just going to feel like Mikko 'lucked into it' a bit though instead of taking the bull by the horns and deserving it on outright performance.

[bluuford]

Bah ! I wonder... did Citroen guys think they'll get past this ? Let's change the spring, nobody will see it (or else) ... ?

Very strange to have now a 2007 title handed to Loeb and now the 2009 one to Hirvonen (maybe ^^), but since the 1986 Markku Alen title robbed I'm not surprised by anything, ever.

Yeah, that was very easy way to escape for them. But I think that it is more like management problem that those non-homologated springs were there. Actually I cannot imagine what is the explanation for that?

[Woodeye]

sh*it well Congrats to Hirvonen then to the 2009 Title. not that i think he deserves it.

But Loeb with non-homologated parts would deserve it?

Shame that Citroen didn't get a proper punishment about this. And it's a shame that they are trying to cheat. Apparently the pressure is really high.

[Steve Boyd]

FIA official statement here:
http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wrc/2009/Pages/wrc_news_aus3_upd.aspx

[Finni]

You are right of course, it's just going to feel like Mikko 'lucked into it' a bit though instead of taking the bull by the horns and deserving it on outright performance.

Don't you recognize Hirvonen's technical problem in argentina as unlucky? If Loeb had same kind of point loss his world championship chances would be almost over now. If current point system is way to rate drivers then Mikko has done the championship-job (presuming that his reliability will remain as 100%)

[dimviii]

FIA official statement here:
http://www.fia.com/enGB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wrc/2009/Pages/wrc_news_aus3_upd.aspx

The Entrant agreed that a part was different from the homologation photo because of the increased length of the part requiring additional notches.

This is a cheat!!
links with increased length in anti roll bars can make them harder.

[harvick#1]

sh*it well Congrats to Hirvonen then to the 2009 Title. not that i think he deserves it.

Spain, I see a Citroen 1-2 and Ogier can very easily make it a 3rd. it can be very easily a tie for the championship lead when they go to GB for the final rally

[sal]

We can beat this in the UK for farce. The result of last years BRC was influenced by a similar incident involving the official Mitsubishi GB team but there were several appeals and hearings before it was resolved...

[Wim]

Why the french teams don't get propper sanctions...Exclusion is the only thing they schould do. But as we know FIA is federation....french....

[jonas_mcrae]

payback for the Windows thing in Portugal

[Barreis]

No more Toyota cases (season ban)..

[alleskids]

Spain, I see a Citroen 1-2 and Ogier can very easily make it a 3rd. it can be very easily a tie for the championship lead when they go to GB for the final rally

Citroen should make sure that Ogier and Petter get the latest evolution of the C4 WRC, to make them challege Mikko, and force him to make a mistake. Ad they shoud offer Francois Duval a 2009 sopec C4 WRC, for free if necesarry.

[tmx]

payback for the Windows thing in Portugal

I think this one minute penalty to Loeb is unfair.




I demand he has a 5 minutes penalty instead.

(I guess a few people beat me to it.)

[Psycho!]

Citroen should make sure that Ogier and Petter get the latest evolution of the C4 WRC, to make them challege Mikko, and force him to make a mistake. Ad they shoud offer Francois Duval a 2009 sopec C4 WRC, for free if necesarry.
Also bring McRae back to life to push Mikko even futher down the board... :dozey:

[Wim_Impreza]

Only 1 minute penalty for the Citroën's? The only right decision was an exclusion for them. Of course Loeb and the French guys are always favoured in motorsport and can do what they want. Now Citroën will win the Manufacturers championship with a car that wasn't legal in an event...

Another thing added to my list of farces in WRC that I typed yesterday. We will have a big book at the end of this year.

[Psycho!]

Now Citroën will win the Manufacturers championship with a car that wasn't legal in an event...


In an event or the whole year?? ;)

[Wim_Impreza]

In an event or the whole year?? ;)

That is the question. Now we know why Ogier was so fast in his first time in Australia. ;)

[ste898]

Its been a long time coming finally the truth is known thankgod the Australian stewarts are on the balls well done everyone inollved

[urabus-denoS2000]

I'm a big Citroen and Loeb fan but it seems as it's a small penalty...

Don't know how important the part was for performance but considering the 2007 Ford 5 min penalty for windows Citroen should have gotten at least 5 mins...

But for sure it would a lot better for everyone if these things wouldn't happen and that the winner would be known at the finish of the stage,not at the green table :(

BTW Congratulations ste898,make big rally fans from your girls!

[Daniel]

Australian Stewarts? LOL

[Daniel]

I put this in with the 307 water pump and 206 flywheel as breaches of the regulations but not cheating. Penalty is about right.

[Minke]

Its been a long time coming finally the truth is known thankgod the Australian stewarts are on the balls well done everyone inollved

I believe that tt was also an aussie Steward that discovered how toyota was cheating with the movable restrictor that would let more air in to the turbo in 1995...

[Cloverleaf]

1966 Monte Carlo Rally
http://www.supercars.net/cars/2911.html

In 1966, Mini went for their hat trick, the four Cooper teams being acknowledged as the favourites in the race and receiving lots of public interest. From the start, the teams lived up to this commitment, Makinen, Aaltonen and Hopkirk left all the others far behind and finishing first, second and third at the end of the Rally.
But then came one of the most questionable decisions in the history of the Monte Carlo Rally. The race commissioners demanded an eight hour technical inspection after the event. As a result, the four additional headlights mounted on the radiator grille of the Mini Coopers were found to fail with French homologation rules. And proceeding from this highly debatable point, the jury disqualified the first three cars. With the Lotus Cortina finishing fourth, and being disqualified for the same reason, Citroen driver Toivonen moved up to the top of the podium as the winner.

[N.O.T]

those stupid time penalty rules are just a joke....there should be 1 clear rule: you cheat you are out...

[smokin'joe]

those stupid time penalty rules are just a joke....there should be 1 clear rule: you cheat you are out... especially when they 'may' have used the parts on previous events.
a specially formed windscreen only lowers the centre of gravity, a specially modified suspension link can alter the whole performance of a car.

[N.O.T]

cheating is cheating...if you start putting levels in cheating you end up with the stupid reality in WRC of today.

[Helstar]

In an event or the whole year?? ;)
Touche' !


Australian Stewarts? LOL
Maybe he wanted to say "Australian Twarts" ... damn they have ruined Citroen "100% honest" reputation now baaaaaaahhhhh ! http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/icons/icon8.gif (sarcastic eh)

[Camelopard]

those stupid time penalty rules are just a joke....there should be 1 clear rule: you cheat you are out...


But not if you are a French team. :)

[grugsticles]

Does anyone else think the whole situation is suspect?

Without the breach, Hirvonen led the championship over Loeb by a single point. Loeb is a pretty sure bet to win the next round in Catalunya with Sordo 2nd leaving Hirvonen 3 points behind going into GB.
With Petter in a upgraded 2008 C4, and with a good history in GB, you would have to say that even if Loeb didnt, the title fight is a pre-written for Loeb to become champion again?

The just couldnt have that!!! Could they?

[bowler]

Its been a long time coming finally the truth is known thankgod the Australian stewarts are on the balls well done everyone inollved

The Stewards are appointed by the FIA (2) and neither can come from the hosting country. In this case Greece and Sweden.

One Steward is appointed by the host ASN.

So 2 Europeans and 1 Australian

[bowler]

I believe that tt was also an aussie Steward that discovered how toyota was cheating with the movable restrictor that would let more air in to the turbo in 1995...

It was an FIA technical delegate (French at that time) who discovered this.

[jonkka]

It was an FIA technical delegate (French at that time) who discovered this.

After observers got suspicious because of Toyota's superior startline performance on Langley Park SSS.

[jonkka]

Does anyone else think the whole situation is suspect?

Without the breach, Hirvonen led the championship over Loeb by a single point. Loeb is a pretty sure bet to win the next round in Catalunya with Sordo 2nd leaving Hirvonen 3 points behind going into GB.
With Petter in a upgraded 2008 C4, and with a good history in GB, you would have to say that even if Loeb didnt, the title fight is a pre-written for Loeb to become champion again?

The just couldnt have that!!! Could they?

I don't follow - what are you suggesting?

[grugsticles]

I don't follow - what are you suggesting?
Sorry, I should have made my point a little clearer. Too much going through the head at one time:P

I wasn't really thinking that Citroen writing the script, but more the WRC organisers to increase interest in GB (where interest is falling rapidly I believe).
I agree with Citroen playing the tactical game by only now allowing Petter a car that has a chance of winning. To me, it makes marketing sense and if I were in charge of Citreon Id probably do the same, but its damn poor form to deny a bloke a winning car (by asking a huge price).

At least GB might be worth watchinghttp://www.rslibertyclub.org/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Daniel]

I don't quite get why people are making such a big deal of this, this is simply an unhomologated part, not a cheat part like... say... Subaru's inlet restrictor from the ST205 GT4.

[J.Lindstroem]

I don't quite get why people are making such a big deal of this, this is simply an unhomologated part, not a cheat part like... say... Subaru's inlet restrictor from the ST205 GT4.

Where does the limit that decides what's a big deal go?

[smokin'joe]

I don't quite get why people are making such a big deal of this, this is simply an unhomologated part, not a cheat part like... say... Subaru's inlet restrictor from the ST205 GT4.
why wasn't the part homolgated???
what advantage is there to using this part over the one that was legally allowed to be there??

there has been far harsher penalties for using non-homolgated of lesser performance increase. I.E waterpump on the Focus, windscreens on the focus.

TTEs famous twin-entry system wasn't homologated, was definate performance gain and look where that got them!!!!

[Wim_Impreza]

I'm a big Citroen and Loeb fan but it seems as it's a small penalty...

Don't know how important the part was for performance but considering the 2007 Ford 5 min penalty for windows Citroen should have gotten at least 5 mins...

But for sure it would a lot better for everyone if these things wouldn't happen and that the winner would be known at the finish of the stage,not at the green table :(

BTW Congratulations ste898,make big rally fans from your girls!

Loeb had only 2 minutes penalty in Monte-Carlo 2002 due to illegal assistence and lost only one place too. Other drivers were excluded for it in the past.

[pino]

I don't quite get why people are making such a big deal of this, this is simply an unhomologated part, not a cheat part like... say... Subaru's inlet restrictor from the ST205 GT4.

Daniel, it doesn't matter ! They've breach the law in the same way as Ford did with their windows. Ford got 5 min penalty, why a different punishment was given to Citroen ? Ridiculous :down:

[AndyRAC]

Somebody mentioned the BRC from last year, and the Mitsubishi team's 'problems' with the steering column/bolt. After appeal and counter appeal, I believe they kept the Championship - however, it left a sour taste in the mouth for many people. This seems to be extremely similar, not a performance enhancing/improving part, just un-homologated.

[JFL]

why replace a part, with one that is not better? ? ?

[smokin'joe]

Andy RAC, if the part wasn't a performance enhancement, why did they not use the homologated version.................. sorry don't buy it, or the penalty.

the only reason a manufacture homologates new components is to make a perfomance/reliability gain (they arn't gonna get approval for something that makes the car slower, are they).

therefore this part was an enhancement, and the correct penalty should be applied

[Priorat]

If Ogier got the same penalty, does it means that he drives a 2009 spec or the irregularity was already there last season?

[JFL]

I'm pretty sure Ogier has got some better specs on his C4 this weekend then what he's used to having.. ;)

[Brother John]

Many years I try to explain hat there is something wrong with the french!
If they have to possible to beat sombody on other way then with the sport!They do! If they can cheat, they do.
Already rather told here befor, never do business with them!
They deceive you also there. :o I pronounce of experience with the french!

[smokin'joe]

Many years I try to explain hat there is something wrong with the french!
If they have to possible to beat sombody on other way then with the sport!They do! If they can cheat, they do.
Already rather told here befor, never do business with them!
They deceive you also there. :o I pronounce of experience with the french!
is that the arrogance of 'it ain't cheating til you get caught' ?

[bassist]

Daniel, it doesn't matter ! They've breach the law in the same way as Ford did with their windows. Ford got 5 min penalty, why a different punishment was given to Citroen ? Ridiculous :down: Is it me, or are most (if not every) sport being subjected to some of unfair advantage? Recently in the Uk Rugby, Snooker, Athletics, Football, and even Historic rallying have suffered Bad press as a result of `Irregularities` in one form or another. the Citroen organisation were well aware (at some level) that non homologated parts were on the three vehicles, and as such would have been suspect if checked! In my opinion a deliberate attempt to gain an advantage by the back door!(whether in performance or reliability) Fords Glass episode pales into insignificance up against this. I would suggest the glass issue was cosmetic, and of no advantage / disadvantage to the cars, and purely down to a cock up from a supplier! However they took the penalty on the chin, as Rules are Rules. Well i think are far as Citroen is concerened Rules mean nothing in this case! They should have at least been given the same penalty as Ford, if not being excluded from the results!

[Juha_Koo]

In interview for a Finnish broadcaster MTV3, Tommi Mäkinen suspects that the un-homologated part COULD have been used to increase the reliability. He doesn't believe that it had a big influence to the speed of the cars.

Mäkinen also believes that the advantage gained is so minimal, that the one-minute penalty is enough.

(http://www.mtv3.fi/urheilu/ralli/uutiset.shtml/arkistot/ralli/2009/09/948891)

[JFL]

Henning Solberg had some diffuculties due to his anti-roll bar loosened.. Maybe Ford or at least Team Expert should try to homologate some new parts to his ford, as it's seems to fall apart on every rally.. (strutbar, shocks threw the bonnet twice, brakelines, antirollbar, steering...+++..) :eek:

[J4MIE]

I would suggest the glass issue was cosmetic, and of no advantage / disadvantage to the cars, and purely down to a cock up from a supplier! However they took the penalty on the chin, as Rules are Rules.

You think so?

I agree that it's very strange that the penalties are different from the Ford case, which is why I think they're not appealing the decision in case the penalty was increased!

I guess it is down to different stewards making the decision, they obviously think the penalty was appropriate.

[Daniel]

Juha, who is that Tommi guy and whay does he know about rallying that qualifies him to speak with more authority than the experts here on the forum?

[kolvas]

Juha, who is that Tommi guy and whay does he know about rallying that qualifies him to speak with more authority than the experts here on the forum?

are you kidding?
You can´t be serius if you dont know who Tommi Mäkinen is?
You joined this forum in Feb 2001 and you haven´t heard of him?
Four time Rally World Champion

http://www.tommimakinen.net/

[Mirek]

Daniel, You know very well that any private team would be prompty excluded for whatever technical infringement.

What makes people sick is what a classic described many years a go as "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

Even this season there were much more strict exclusions such as thinner discs from two years old homologation, laminate mudguards from national homologation instead of lighter aluminium from FIA homologation, outdated glowes etc.

How can a man respect some regulations when they are applied the way they suit to somebody's interest?

[Daniel]

are you kidding?
You can´t be serius if you dont know who Tommi Mäkinen is?
You joined this forum in Feb 2001 and you haven´t heard of him?
Four time Rally World Champion

http://www.tommimakinen.net/
I was being sarcastic :)

[Daniel]

]Daniel, You know very well that any private team would be prompty excluded for whatever technical infringement.

What makes people sick is what a classic described many years a go as "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

Even this season there were much more strict exclusions such as thinner discs from two years old homologation, laminate mudguards from national homologation instead of lighter aluminium from FIA homologation, outdated glowes etc.

How can a man respect some regulations when they are applied the way they suit to somebody's interest?

Mirek, there are different levels of "cheating".

We don't know the exact details of what happened and the exact implications of it.

There is quite frankly loads of crap written on this forum with absolutely no authority, knowledge or understanding of the issues at hand. Someone went as far as to say that Ogier was so fast in Australia on his first time (Everyone elses first time as well :rolleyes: ) because of a couple of extra notches in an ARB mount. Give me a ****ing break, this is the guy that came out and spanked the competition in Rally GB last year when the conditions were extremely treacherous. Also if the ARB mount is not a restricted part like lets say the restrictor or the width of a tyre, if Citroen had wanted to include this part in their latest homologation they could have.

If anyone wants to accuse me of favouring Citroen and hating Ford then feel free to dig up my posts regarding Markko Martin's exclusion from Rally Australia the year when he wedged his spare wheel in with a rock or 2001 where Colin McRae got penalised my Knobby Connelly for being late to choose his road position. Both times when I very passionately backed both Ford drivers and criticised their penalties/exclusion.

Now if anyone here is more knowledgeable and has a better understanding of rallying than 4 time WORLD CHAMPION Tommi Makkinen then stand up and say your words...... other than that..... well you know what I'm going to say :wave:

[ste898]

I cannot understand why people on here can seriously defend Citroen....this is cheating and that is A FACT................
I f it were any other team they would have been excluded total double standards by the French FIA!!!!

[Daniel]

I cannot understand why people on here can seriously defend Citroen....this is cheating and that is A FACT................
I f it were any other team they would have been excluded total double standards by the French FIA!!!!
I can't believe people like you are totally ignoring the actual issues here.

[Mirek]

Mirek, there are different levels of "cheating".

Yes they are, but why stewards have a respect to this level only in case of someone and don't give a s.h.i.t about any other team?

Is using heavier nationaly-homologated laminate mudguard cheating? Especialy when using such part is allowed next year? Why four cars were excluded for that despite FIA itself said that heavier part gave them no advantage?

Is using thinner brake discs from outdated homologation cheating? What is an advantage from using worse part which was two years before normaly legal? It's mistake but cheating? Why was the crew excluded?

Is outdated glowes cheating? Why was the driver excluded?

These cases happened. WRC is not only about factory teams and those others may for sure feel damaged by this funny penalty for Citroën. Rulles should be applied the same way if FIA wants others to respect them otherwise it's more a commedy. That's my stance.

[MikeD]

Many years I try to explain hat there is something wrong with the french!
If they have to possible to beat sombody on other way then with the sport!They do! If they can cheat, they do.
Already rather told here befor, never do business with them!
They deceive you also there. :o I pronounce of experience with the french!

*cough* *cough* McLaren! ... they are not French and they have been caught cheating 3-4 times over the last 10 years.

[kolvas]

I was being sarcastic :)

I was suspecting that but you never know on a forum :D

Citroen could have homologated the part but they didn´t so they should have a penalty.
The penalty should have been the same as Ford got for their windows.

[lcd]

]...Rulles should be applied the same way if FIA wants others to respect them otherwise it's more a commedy...

That's the exact point of the whole story! :up:

[Barreis]

When Tommi took that win from S.Loeb on MC 2002 that was the start of the end of his career.. If I remember good no wins for Tommi after that..

[Tumbo]

no more wins tho in argentina that yr he crashed out very heavily chasing Gronholm for the win (something he didn't ahve to do because the pugs were excluded for running underweight flywheels - ahhh full circle)

[WRCfan]

If Citroen infringed on the rules as Ford did with their windows then an infringement is an infringement. Penalty should have been the same as in the Ford case. However it works it's a blow for Seb and a chance for Mikko to really take the championship.

It's deserved, they should know replacing a part whether they are allowed to or not, if not then they shouldn't replace it without getting it homologated. Someone in the team has gone and made a big time mistake here.

[Barreis]

no more wins tho in argentina that yr he crashed out very heavily chasing Gronholm for the win (something he didn't ahve to do because the pugs were excluded for running underweight flywheels - ahhh full circle)

His face (on onboards) show that year he didn't enjoy anymore..

[Shrike]

I agree the penalty should be equal to past homologation penalties or at very least, future similar penalties should be consistant with this "new" penalty. Otherwise I will start believing what has been long suggested on this forum about the credibility of the FIA.

[Grany]

payback for the Windows thing in Portugal

About the Citroen's case, it's just a "administrative" problem.
The proof: no car modifications were required - for the future - because anti-roll bar support respected regulation compliance.
Not the Ford's case...forced to change the windows.
Major difference, no?


Why the french teams don't get propper sanctions...Exclusion is the only thing they schould do. But as we know FIA is federation....french....


Only 1 minute penalty for the Citroën's? The only right decision was an exclusion for them. Of course Loeb and the French guys are always favoured in motorsport and can do what they want. Now Citroën will win the Manufacturers championship with a car that wasn't legal in an event...

Another thing added to my list of farces in WRC that I typed yesterday. We will have a big book at the end of this year.

Why Ford don't get any sanction during the Portugal 2007 rally; Gronholm's Focus was found to be underweight. Isn't it a basic cheat punished in any other sport, no?

About FIA is soooo french, it's like I said that UN is american organization or NATO is belgian organization...
And soooo much french guys in the FIA World Motor Sport Council: http://www.private.fia.com/Web/fia-priv ... CMSA%20apr (http://www.private.fia.com/Web/fia-private.nsf/0/74875D605980C0E9C125757D003C0557/$File/CMSA%20apr)ès%20AG%202008.pdf

Funny to read that Renault F1, ex Peugeot WRC or even Citroen/Loeb (remember Montecarlo 2002) are still favored.

[Shrike]

Why Ford don't get any sanction during the Portugal 2007 rally; Gronholm's Focus was found to be underweight. Isn't it a basic cheat punished in any other sport, no?

That is a bit of a reach in my opinion. Gronholm or his team didn't decide to crash and lose a tire. Maybe he should have been penalized but it was an accident on the stage that caused it.

[Daniel]

When Tommi took that win from S.Loeb on MC 2002 that was the start of the end of his career.. If I remember good no wins for Tommi after that..
Only a few months earlier the 2 WTC's were taked down as well. Coincidence? ;)

[Daniel]

]Yes they are, but why stewards have a respect to this level only in case of someone and don't give a s.h.i.t about any other team?

Is using heavier nationaly-homologated laminate mudguard cheating? Especialy when using such part is allowed next year? Why four cars were excluded for that despite FIA itself said that heavier part gave them no advantage?

Is using thinner brake discs from outdated homologation cheating? What is an advantage from using worse part which was two years before normaly legal? It's mistake but cheating? Why was the crew excluded?

Is outdated glowes cheating? Why was the driver excluded?

These cases happened. WRC is not only about factory teams and those others may for sure feel damaged by this funny penalty for Citroën. Rulles should be applied the same way if FIA wants others to respect them otherwise it's more a commedy. That's my stance.

Let's remember that stewards change from event to event.

[Daniel]

That is a bit of a reach in my opinion. Gronholm or his team didn't decide to crash and lose a tire. Maybe he should have been penalized but it was an accident on the stage that caused it.

Yes but they designed the car in a significantly different way to the competition. Any other competition car would have to crash out of an event to lose the SPARE wheel yet with the Ford it can so easily happen as an "accident"

Personally I think this should have been punished as well. This is not typical crash damage loss of weight.

[I am evil Homer]

About the Citroen's case, it's just a "administrative" problem.
The proof: no car modifications were required - for the future - because anti-roll bar support respected regulation compliance.
Not the Ford's case...forced to change the windows.
Major difference, no?





Why Ford don't get any sanction during the Portugal 2007 rally; Gronholm's Focus was found to be underweight. Isn't it a basic cheat punished in any other sport, no?

About FIA is soooo french, it's like I said that UN is american organization or NATO is belgian organization...
And soooo much french guys in the FIA World Motor Sport Council: http://www.private.fia.com/Web/fia-priv ... CMSA%20apr (http://www.private.fia.com/Web/fia-private.nsf/0/74875D605980C0E9C125757D003C0557/$File/CMSA%20apr)ès%20AG%202008.pdf

Funny to read that Renault F1, ex Peugeot WRC or even Citroen/Loeb (remember Montecarlo 2002) are still favored.

Finally someone talks sense! If they were cheating Citroean would be asked to change the part...they haven't so it isn't 'illegal'.

[Tomi]

Only a few months earlier the 2 WTC's were taked down as well. Coincidence? ;)

Before i tought it was because of lousy foreign policy, but maybe you have a point in that. :)

5min would have been fair penalty.

[Daniel]

Nope, it was Tommi.

[J.Lindstroem]

are you kidding?
You can´t be serius if you dont know who Tommi Mäkinen is?
You joined this forum in Feb 2001 and you haven´t heard of him?
Four time Rally World Champion

http://www.tommimakinen.net/

hahahahaha hilerious!

[Barreis]

Only a few months earlier the 2 WTC's were taked down as well. Coincidence? ;)

Yeah, few thousand lifes has been taken.. And here four tyres..

[L5->R5/CR]

Finally someone talks sense! If they were cheating Citroean would be asked to change the part...they haven't so it isn't 'illegal'.

So when Pugeot was excluded when they were running the 307 because the water pump propeller blades were made out of a non-homogulated materials (note the pump still flowed the same, mounted the same, worked the exact same) that was different?

Citroen used a non-homogulated part. It doesn't matter if it offered a performance advantage or not. It was not the part they were allowed to use.

To the poster that mentioned Ford's need to change the windows after Portugal.....Unless Citroen updates the homogulation on the car they better take those ARBs off of the car because I would fully expect the technical delegates to look at them in Spain. The part is non-compliant with the rules, change it or change the rules....


The 1 minute penalty is a farce, 5 minutes or exclusion....

[Daniel]

So when Pugeot was excluded when they were running the 307 because the water pump propeller blades were made out of a non-homogulated materials (note the pump still flowed the same, mounted the same, worked the exact same) that was different?

That part was ILLEGAL. They could not have homologated that part as the regulations state that the water pump should be made out of the same material as the one on the road car which the car is based on. Illegal is different to unhomologated.

[A.F.F.]

I can't believe Citroen didn't know they had unhomologated part in their car. In this level of rallying, I just can't believe it.

The question is why did they put it ?

[OldF]

This part has been designed, manufactured, tested, approved and should have been homologated.

Can just imagine the words of the responsible for homologation of new parts.

“Sh*t, I knew it was something I’ve forgotten”. ;)

[jonkka]

I'm pretty sure Ogier has got some better specs on his C4 this weekend then what he's used to having.. ;)

Impossible. Ogier was running for Manufacturer Team and according to rules, MT cannot use parts homologated this year. Ironically though, as part was not homologated, he was able to use it.


That part was ILLEGAL. They could not have homologated that part as the regulations state that the water pump should be made out of the same material as the one on the road car which the car is based on. Illegal is different to unhomologated.

Wrong - do not confuse cause and effect. It's illegal to have unhomologated part in your car. It does not matter why it's unhomologated.


What bugs me in these stewards' decisions is that the penalty is not the same across the board, as amply demonstrated by examples given in this thread. On one hand, I think it's good that stewards have power to deliberate but on other hand I think there should be clearer guidelines as to what penalties are handed out for different offences. For example, penalties for early/late arrival or jump start are specified in the rules but others are not - even though there very well could be guidelines. That is definitely what FIA should look at.

[farquar wrc]

How can Citreon only get a 1 minute penalty for running with an illegal performance enhancing part on there cars,and Ford get a 5 minute penalty for the wrong back windows in there's,when exactly did Bernie Eccelstone take the helm of the WRC

[ZequeArgentina]

For me it is not the same to cheat that to have an uncompliance.
First case is try to simulate rules compliance , but gaining performance, and try to cover the intentional uncompliance.

the other is an uncompliance due to an error or negligence (the cases Mirek mention, like Argentineans N4 with heavier but cheape fibergalss mudguards, or older barkes).
The Citroen problem, as far as we know, is a mistake in the homologation, or they found they could increase durability, change the part but they did not homolagate that change (can they? is it not restricted opportunities to homologate changes to RC nowadays?).

For me it isat least as severe as the cases mentioned by Mirek (I do not consider the gloves, cause thata is a safety issue for drivers).

and another question: what if Seb had taken more than 1 minute advantageover Mikko? Same penalty? Had he still be considered winner?

2 minute penalty? so Sordo would have lost 3rd position, but same error as now?
Quite strange.
Anyway, I do tink Citroen was penalized, but with privaterers, penalties are stricter, may be too much.

[Daniel]

Wrong - do not confuse cause and effect. It's illegal to have unhomologated part in your car. It does not matter why it's unhomologated.

Did you go to a school to learn to misunderstand things and not read posts like this or does it come naturally?

The fact of the matter is that not in a month of Sundays would Peugeot's water pump or TTE's inlet restrictor EVER have been legal. TTE's inlet restrictor was about as illegal as you get and the 307's water pump wasn't made out of the same material as the road car hence I L L E G A L. All Citroen had to do was homologate this part at the next available opportunity and it was L E G A L. There's a world of difference between the examples I've given and I've explained this before.

[DonJippo]

All Citroen had to do was homologate this part at the next available opportunity and it was L E G A L. There's a world of difference between the examples I've given and I've explained this before.

It matters nothing if the part may be legal sometime in FUTURE what matters is now and it was not according the rules.

[Daniel]

Of course DJ and for this reason it was right to penalise Citroen. But I was just wanting to make a point.

[Helstar]

I can't believe Citroen didn't know they had unhomologated part in their car. In this level of rallying, I just can't believe it.
The question is why did they put it ?
Yes, that one is interesting question ... and also the suspect it couldn't even be the only not-legal part ... also: since when that part has been used ? This rally ? Two ? Whole season ... ? We'll never know.


Impossible. Ogier was running for Manufacturer Team and according to rules, MT cannot use parts homologated this year. Ironically though, as part was not homologated, he was able to use it.

I think Ogier was driving a latest spec C4 this time. I don't know in previous rallies, but you can clearly see by that part that the he had same Loeb and Sordo car here in Australia. And that is forbidden btw (M2 can have 08 cars spec at best).

Oh last thing, we are forgetting the engine failure of Loeb's car in the shakedown of Mexico last year (if I remember well).
Citroen changed the engine and didn't even know they would get a penalty lol ! And the funniest thing is that they mounted the previous broken one again, which was meanwhile 'repaired' (?). And FIA said oh all ok then, it's fine you can go on now...

[Daniel]

They wouldn't be so dumb as to give Ogier the latest spec car.

[A.F.F.]

I don't Citroen cheating since everybody cheats.

I mind them not having the same scale of penalty as others :down:

[alleskids]

Ogier was nominated for the MT2 Junior team, and MT2 are not alowed to have the latest specifications, so Ogier could not have driven the latest C4 and be nominated for MT2

[Mirek]

I don't Citroen cheating since everybody cheats.

I mind them not having the same scale of penalty as others :down:

+1

Better than differet aplication of rulles to each competitor is to stop using rulles at all and let everyone do whatever he wants. The stronger and happier survives. Noone can complain and spectators are happy... :s mokin:

... the only problem is that we would have crowd of poor jobless FIA officials :dozey: :o

[bowler]

the modified part did not alter the performance of the car in any way.

the stewards who heard the case were appointed by the FIA, and base their decision on the information presented to them. They do not need to refer to any "higher" authority.

I assume that the actual modification is so minor that it only warrants the penalty imposed.

Those of us on this forum have the ability to speculate, but do not have any of the information presented to the stewards.

[JFL]

If the modification is so minor, why dont Citröen post som pictures and explanations, so the don't get all this speculation and bad publicity? Can't do it any worse, then it allready is.. Talked to some people today, that are not so into rallying, and they where under the impression that Citröen is a big cheater...

[N.O.T]

oh my god i think PSA will go bankrupt because of this.....name a team that hasn't cheated in the WRC so i can buy their cars instead of those Big cheating citroen dogs....

And if the people aren;t into rallying how do they know about the illegal part citroen used ???

[JFL]

they've read about it in the papers.. The biggest newspapers here wrote about it..a lot of internetpages also.. If you only read the headlines,they cheated!! I can name many teams that have cheaten, but this is the biggest news so far! Back in the days, when Toyota was caught, internet was not so big and accessable, but now it's all over before you know it.. And the window issue with ford was'nt that much of buzz...
I guess they can ask you N.O.T, what to do. You seem to have all the answers..
I mean if it's not a big deal, why not just show what the fuzz is all about, and get it over with?
If you are about to get a fine or jailtime or whatever in court for whatever, and you have proof to be innocent or ignorant I would definatly step up and hand over my evidence... But thats just me..

[Daniel]

JFL you're hilarious, post pictures? You gotta be kidding. This thing hasn't been on the news and I bet sales of cars were not affected one teeny bit

[Helstar]

JFL you're hilarious, post pictures? You gotta be kidding. This thing hasn't been on the news and I bet sales of cars were not affected one teeny bit
lol ... I don't know about the car sales (but I guess over there in Citroen are not that worried; I mean, the French Government is going to give or already gave them millions and millions of euro so...) but I can post what happened here about last rallies in Italian mass-media:

- nobody talked of Poland at all
- Finland only that Raikkonen would have raced (no infos after that, his roll or anything else ^^)
- Australia first about rock throwers/protesters on first day and then Loeb getting a penalty and losing his victory.

Everybody on msn (friends of mine who are f1 fans, mainly) asked what was going on, they knew of the problem.

I'm curious to hear from other countries.

[L5->R5/CR]

Did you go to a school to learn to misunderstand things and not read posts like this or does it come naturally?

The fact of the matter is that not in a month of Sundays would Peugeot's water pump or TTE's inlet restrictor EVER have been legal. TTE's inlet restrictor was about as illegal as you get and the 307's water pump wasn't made out of the same material as the road car hence I L L E G A L. All Citroen had to do was homologate this part at the next available opportunity and it was L E G A L. There's a world of difference between the examples I've given and I've explained this before.

Non-compliant is non-compliant.

You can say the Citroen part could be legal, sure, but for this rally it wasn't. It doesn't matter if it COULD have been legal. Obviously the stewards when, "hrm, it isn't a real performance upgrade, sure, it might have been able to sustain higher stresses and be more resistant to damage, but the legal cars didn't break so it probably didn't matter."

You are making an argument for nuance, when in reality, the judge of FACT (the technical delegate) identified a non-compliant car. The stewards decided that this NON COMPLIANT car was less in non compliance than other NON COMPLIANT cars. NON Compliance is non compliance, there are obviously 3 sets of rules and penalties in the WRC and that is crap.




the modified part did not alter the performance of the car in any way.

the stewards who heard the case were appointed by the FIA, and base their decision on the information presented to them. They do not need to refer to any "higher" authority.

I assume that the actual modification is so minor that it only warrants the penalty imposed.

Those of us on this forum have the ability to speculate, but do not have any of the information presented to the stewards.



So if you only break the rules a little its ok?


If there was no advantage to this part why even put it on the car? Why does it even exist if it doesn't potentially offer a performance advantage?

The reality is Citroen developed the part for some reason and there is no reason to decrease the performance of the car. If the new part is more reliable, or easier to replace, or makes other components easier to replace or more reliable, then it is a performance advantage.

Obviously the majority of the forumers think that it is ok for the rules to be full of gray areas....

[tmx]

The reality is Citroen developed the part for some reason and there is no reason to decrease the performance of the car. If the new part is more reliable, or easier to replace, or makes other components easier to replace or more reliable, then it is a performance advantage.

I think you nailed it here.

[jonkka]

Obviously the majority of the forumers think that it is ok for the rules to be full of gray areas....

Like I said, I think it's good to have some flexibility in rule interpretation and allow a degree of freedom for stewards to deliberate. But I feel that at the moment there is too little guidelines about penalties for technical infringements which leads to this kind of variance from case to case.

[Robbo]

In NZ we had this issue of determining penalties due to use of the term "performance enhancing" - one of the ways we got over it is to have technical infringements as performance or non performance. Performance is to do with running or reliability of the vehicle and non performance is purely cosmetic

we have a standard set of penalties that our Clerks of the Course and Stewards are to follow - performance penalty is exclusion - very simple

this discussion on NZ Rally forums mainly express amazement that the penalty of 1minute that was imposed

[Daniel]

Non-compliant is non-compliant.

You can say the Citroen part could be legal, sure, but for this rally it wasn't. It doesn't matter if it COULD have been legal. Obviously the stewards when, "hrm, it isn't a real performance upgrade, sure, it might have been able to sustain higher stresses and be more resistant to damage, but the legal cars didn't break so it probably didn't matter."

You are making an argument for nuance, when in reality, the judge of FACT (the technical delegate) identified a non-compliant car. The stewards decided that this NON COMPLIANT car was less in non compliance than other NON COMPLIANT cars. NON Compliance is non compliance, there are obviously 3 sets of rules and penalties in the WRC and that is crap.







So if you only break the rules a little its ok?


If there was no advantage to this part why even put it on the car? Why does it even exist if it doesn't potentially offer a performance advantage?

The reality is Citroen developed the part for some reason and there is no reason to decrease the performance of the car. If the new part is more reliable, or easier to replace, or makes other components easier to replace or more reliable, then it is a performance advantage.

Obviously the majority of the forumers think that it is ok for the rules to be full of gray areas....

Life is full of grey areas and trying to have rules to cover every eventuality is only going to result in a rulebook which is as thick as some of the people on this forum.

You've got to look at this from the point of view of compliance/non-compliance. Teams deliberately trying to get around the rules and modify restricted parts or say... having a car which when scrutineered is fine but when on the stage is illegal. In this case you've got to consider that this part could have just been homologated. So the infringement relates more to them not homologating the part before fitting it which with a team like Citroen is obviously an oversight. I mean do you honestly think Olivier Quesnel and the team decisionmakers had a meating and said "Ohohehohehohehoheho let us make zeees anti rollbar leenk which she eez slightly different to ze other one and which we could just homologate but we shall put on zee car without omologating errr and risk getting disqualified or penalised just because we can because we are smelly Frenchmen who need a shower non?" Yeah because that's a ****ing bright idea, let's open ourselves up to being penalised for no good reason and for no gain. If Citroen had run a part which actually affected the performance of their car and was illegal in terms of not being a part that would pass homologation then I would support exclusion or even a rally ban but this was a cockup and nothing more.

The fact that Ford aren't bouncing off the walls and screaming about how unjust the penalty is should say a lot about the matter. Malcolm Wilson is the sort of petty person who would try and use any issue no matter how small to get his team closer to taking the two titles and Malcolm seems happy with what's happened. Think about that for a moment! If you were running a team and the other guys got away with cheating would you be sitting there silent?

[smokin'joe]

Life is full of grey areas and trying to have rules to cover every eventuality is only going to result in a rulebook which is as thick as some of the people on this forum.
WRONG!! the rules state the car must meet the homologation documents pertaining to the entered vehicle, and the entrant signs the entry form to state his car is fully compliant.and as for calling forum members thick, i think i can safely state that you are a spectator of the sport, who may have competed a few times. unlike Robbo above who has a pivotal job in MSNZ, and myself who is a mere scrutineer/CoC, so we both have a reasonable grasp of the sport.


You've got to look at this from the point of view of compliance/non-compliance. Teams deliberately trying to get around the rules and modify restricted parts or say... having a car which when scrutineered is fine but when on the stage is illegal.
quite often the cars are checked at scrutineering primarily for a safety inspection and the major technical inspection is performed on the top placed cars only

In this case you've got to consider that this part could have just been homologated. if the part had just been homologated, there would be an extension for that part in the cars 'bible', the part wasn't listed therefore it is 'non-compliant'

So the infringement relates more to them not homologating the part before fitting it which with a team like Citroen is obviously an oversight. due the fact they thought they might get away with it, and didn't.

[A.F.F.]

But Why Citroen Always Gets Away With These Things With Lesser Penalty???? Why Why Why Why Why ?

[AndyRAC]

lol ... I don't know about the car sales (but I guess over there in Citroen are not that worried; I mean, the French Government is going to give or already gave them millions and millions of euro so...) but I can post what happened here about last rallies in Italian mass-media:

- nobody talked of Poland at all
- Finland only that Raikkonen would have raced (no infos after that, his roll or anything else ^^)
- Australia first about rock throwers/protesters on first day and then Loeb getting a penalty and losing his victory.

Everybody on msn (friends of mine who are f1 fans, mainly) asked what was going on, they knew of the problem.

I'm curious to hear from other countries.

If it had have been F1, it would have been all over the papers. However, nobody gives a tinkers cuss for WRC, so very little was said.

[JFL]

just a few of the the biggest web-papers in Norway ( use google translate)
http://www.vg.no/sport/motor/artikkel.php?artid=573733
http://www.vg.no/sport/motor/artikkel.php?artid=573659
http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/09/07/sport/motorsport/rally/7986759/
http://www.abcnyheter.no/node/95213

[Finni]

The fact that there is scarcely any ciritical articles on this issue is once again showing how low wrc-journalism really is.

[Daniel]

WRONG!! the rules state the car must meet the homologation documents pertaining to the entered vehicle, and the entrant signs the entry form to state his car is fully compliant.and as for calling forum members thick, i think i can safely state that you are a spectator of the sport, who may have competed a few times. unlike Robbo above who has a pivotal job in MSNZ, and myself who is a mere scrutineer/CoC, so we both have a reasonable grasp of the sport.

Was there a test with a comprehension section you had to complete? I never said any of the **** you're accusing me of saying. L5->R5/CR said
Obviously the majority of the forumers think that it is ok for the rules to be full of gray areas.... and my reply was directed at this in a general fashion not specifically in regards to ARB links or with regards to homologation so it is your post which is in fact
WRONG!!


quite often the cars are checked at scrutineering primarily for a safety inspection and the major technical inspection is performed on the top placed cars only
if the part had just been homologated, there would be an extension for that part in the cars 'bible', the part wasn't listed therefore it is 'non-compliant'
due the fact they thought they might get away with it, and didn't.

Yes and the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, what appears to be your point though?

It seems to me that you think I'm somehow arguing that Citroen have done nothing wrong and that they don't deserve a penalty. Where have I said this? Actually wait.... I haven't said this :) The argument that I'm making is that Citroen are guilty of nothing more than cocking up and making an administrative error in not homologating the part, hence calling this silly little fiasco "cheating" is not correct.

You might have a reasonable grasp of the sport this much you've demonstrated, but your understanding of the English language and your comprehension skills are shocking.

[N.O.T]

Time penalties are stupid as i said earlier...only exclusion should be the outcome. That way you keep the championship clean.

[Saabaru]

I still remember the 5 minute penalty for Ford,because of the thinner windows...

Just one more example of the WRC playing favorites with the homologation rules! The rear windows on the Focus were ½ mm to thin, truly no effect on performance. The Citroen’s parts however where a direct influence on the suspension. For all you who don’t think that the WRC hasn’t been playing footsie with Loeb, how do you explain that?

[Rally_Rocks]

"Life is full of grey areas and trying to have rules to cover every eventuality is only going to result in a rulebook which is as thick as some of the people on this forum." Daniel

I stop Reading threads when I come across self indulgent, grandious, pompous crap like this. Daniel, you were quiet for a while, and certainly not missed. The point of this post is to ask that we all respect the views and opinions of all fellow rally fans who take the time to post on this forum. Unfortunately, in Daniel's case, I find it hard to follow my own rules!

[Daniel]

You are making an argument for nuance, when in reality, the judge of FACT (the technical delegate) identified a non-compliant car. The stewards decided that this NON COMPLIANT car was less in non compliance than other NON COMPLIANT cars. NON Compliance is non compliance, there are obviously 3 sets of rules and penalties in the WRC and that is crap.

That's not what I'm saying, you're trying to suggest I don't think they deserve a penalty and that I disagree with what has been done when all I'm saying is that people are wrong to consider it cheating when you look at the facts.

[Saabaru]

In interview for a Finnish broadcaster MTV3, Tommi Mäkinen suspects that the un-homologated part COULD have been used to increase the reliability. He doesn't believe that it had a big influence to the speed of the cars.

Mäkinen also believes that the advantage gained is so minimal, that the one-minute penalty is enough.

(http://www.mtv3.fi/urheilu/ralli/uutiset.shtml/arkistot/ralli/2009/09/948891)

Yeah and he is friends with Loeb, I'm sure his statements wouldn't be bias.

[bluuford]

It seems to me that you think I'm somehow arguing that Citroen have done nothing wrong and that they don't deserve a penalty. Where have I said this? Actually wait.... I haven't said this :) The argument that I'm making is that Citroen are guilty of nothing more than cocking up and making an administrative error in not homologating the part, hence calling this silly little fiasco "cheating" is not correct.

You can call this cheating when they are trying to homologate this little tiny spring and they are not allowed for some reason.
In my view - both, Ford penalty in the past and Citroen penalty now were all down to management errors. I just expect that in the future similar kind of errors will be punished with similar way.

[Rally_Rocks]

"Life is full of grey areas and trying to have rules to cover every eventuality is only going to result in a rulebook which is as thick as some of the people on this forum." Daniel

I stop Reading threads when I come across self indulgent, grandious, pompous crap like this. Daniel, you were quiet for a while, and certainly not missed. The point of this post is to ask that we all respect the views and opinions of all fellow rally fans who take the time to post on this forum. Unfortunately, in Daniel's case, I find it hard to follow my own rules!

[Daniel]

You can call this cheating when they are trying to homologate this little tiny spring and they are not allowed for some reason.
In my view - both, Ford penalty in the past and Citroen penalty now were all down to management errors. I just expect that in the future similar kind of errors will be punished with similar way.

It's not a spring.

[Daniel]

"Life is full of grey areas and trying to have rules to cover every eventuality is only going to result in a rulebook which is as thick as some of the people on this forum." Daniel

I stop Reading threads when I come across self indulgent, grandious, pompous crap like this. Daniel, you were quiet for a while, and certainly not missed. The point of this post is to ask that we all respect the views and opinions of all fellow rally fans who take the time to post on this forum. Unfortunately, in Daniel's case, I find it hard to follow my own rules!

Life IS full of grey areas and if you had a rulebook which covered every eventuality it would be thick, perhaps as thick as some of the people on this forum. If there is any flaw in that statement feel free to highlight it and show reasoning.....

Why should I respect people when they post stuff which is blatantly crap?

Should we respect people who are members of the BNP? Who commit war crimes? Child molesters? NO! If someone says that they prefer red cars and I prefer white cars then of course I should respect their opinion but if people want to accuse a team of cheating when they've done nothing more than be silly enough to not homologate a part then I'm going to point these things out. No one went off like a pork chop and accused Ford of cheating to TTE levels and saying they should have been excluded and that the FIA was eating out of their hands when they had thinner windows than the regulations allowed.

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums//showthread.php?t=116296

It should also be pointed out that the windows on the Fords were actually illegal and would never have been able to have been homologated as the minimum thickness was 3.5mm AFAIK and the windows were 3.0mm hence a direct, obvious and blatant violation of the regulations. Citroen however just stuffed up.

[driveace]

Citroen ,Did not stuff up.THEY RAN PARTS THAT WERE NOT HOMOLOGATED FOR THAT CAR .SO THAT WAS ILLEGAL, and not sticking to the rules!

[Daniel]

Did I say it wasn't against the rules?

[pino]

Why should I respect people when they post stuff which is blatantly crap?




Because everyone is entitled to an opinion like it or not, and you should know by now Daniel ;)

[Daniel]

But if people don't want to respect my opinion or even justify their own?

[smokin'joe]

It seems to me that you think I'm somehow arguing that Citroen have done nothing wrong and that they don't deserve a penalty. Where have I said this? Actually wait.... I haven't said this :) The argument that I'm making is that Citroen are guilty of nothing more than cocking up and making an administrative error in not homologating the part, hence calling this silly little fiasco "cheating" is not correct.

You might have a reasonable grasp of the sport this much you've demonstrated, but your understanding of the English language and your comprehension skills are shocking.
Denial, can you comprehend this:the part wasn't homologated, therefore not currently legal (i.e ILLEGAL), therefore one can make the ruling they were 'cheating', acting 'illegally', somewhat 'deceitful'.

being passionate towards a team is one thing, but justifying their 'not currently legal' part as a minor administrative error that had no malice or bearing any performance gain is bollocks.

[Daniel]

Denial, can you comprehend this:the part wasn't homologated, therefore not currently legal (i.e ILLEGAL), therefore one can make the ruling they were 'cheating', acting 'illegally', somewhat 'deceitful'.

being passionate towards a team is one thing, but justifying their 'not currently legal' part as a minor administrative error that had no malice or bearing any performance gain is bollocks.
I've never justified their part. I've simply said that it wasn't as blatant violation of the rules as Ford's was. You can't argue that a part which would be legal if homologated is just as bad as a part which would never be legal at all.

[sollitt]

Daniel, congratulations on your new role as public relations director for Citroen WRT.
I wonder, did you warn them when you applied of your predilection for insulting Repco Rally Australia supremo, Gary Connelly?

Perhaps this whole scenario might have been avoided if you had.

[Daniel]

Daniel, congratulations on your new role as public relations director for Citroen WRT.
I wonder, did you warn them when you applied of your predilection for insulting Repco Rally Australia supremo, Gary Connelly?

Perhaps this whole scenario might have been avoided if you had.
What are you on about troll?

[sollitt]

Well you appear to have so much insight into the intent of the team, in using this illegal part, that I presumed you must have worked for them.

Oh, hang on. You're not basing your comments on the one or two line statement from Quesnel are you?
I'm sure there's a few stewards from various countries on this forum who could tell you that all competitors deny any wrong doing when asked to account for their actions in a hearing.

You don't suppose that, given their many decades of top level motorsport experience, it's reasonable to assume that they might fully understand the homologation process? And that their failure to comply might not have been just an innocent blunder but rather a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules?

[Helstar]

Well you appear to have so much insight into the intent of the team, in using this illegal part, that I presumed you must have worked for them.
Oh, hang on. You're not basing your comments on the one or two line statement from Quesnel are you?

The sad/funny thing (depends on how you see it) about Daniel is that he's not actually paid to do the "Citroen lawyer" in this forum. Otherwise I would perfectly understand his behaviour... ^^;
He's just an obsessed fanboy who have to impose his own opinion as a matter of life.
One time he wanted to be right in an argument (how drivers face the SuperSpecialsStages) against Pentti Harikkala ! -.-

[ST205GT4]

I'm not sure what the big fuss is about.

Running different end links is not going to pick you up 1 sec/km. And it's not like you can hide the things unlike TTE's magical restrictor which was designed not to be found. Big difference in intent.

Furthermore as Daniel correctly points out, Ford weren't excluded for having thinner windows a while back.

The only issue I can see is whether or not the time penalty applied is correct. I can see the case for hitting Citroen with a 5 min penalty as that's what had been meted out to Ford for a technical irregularity that wasn't considered bad enough to result in exclusion.

However, for whatever reason the stewards who were at the event deemed a 1 min penalty as commensurate with the breach. Suggesting that it's some sort of FIA plot in favour or Citroen sounds a bit like any other conspiracy theory to me. ie. unlikely.

[jonkka]

against Pentti Harikkala ! -.-

Who?

[smokin'joe]

I've never justified their part. I've simply said that it wasn't as blatant violation of the rules as Ford's was. You can't argue that a part which would be legal if homologated is just as bad as a part which would never be legal at all.sweet. so the group N teams can use a bigger restrictor for the rest of the year because they "may' be allowed to use them as of next year!!!!!




What are you on about troll?
petty insults towards former competitors/current event organisers won't win you any votes.

[macksrallye]

In the end Citroen stuffed up. They had a part on the car that didn't meet the homologation, the homologation that they agreed their car complied to when they signed the entry form. So we know they cheated (for want of a better description).

We could argue about the penalty's from here to eternity but the reality is the FIA & their stewards aren't consistant & that is the issue. If an "illegal" car gets excluded, then it gets excluded, if it gets a time penalty then it gets a time penalty. The problem with time penalty's is that there is no guide as to how big the penalty is soit depends what scrutineer you get on the day.

The issue I have with the way this has happened is that if ford & mikko now lose the title there is no reason they can't finish the championship in court because of Citroens "questionable" penalty. Lets face it, MW will not let it rest if he loses the championship & Citroen got a 1min penalty where he has previousally copped 5mins.

[Daniel]

petty insults towards former competitors/current event organisers won't win you any votes.

I'm not here to win a popularity contest. Solitt's post was indeed only there to get a reaction from me so if there's any better example of trolling I've yet to see it.


sweet. so the group N teams can use a bigger restrictor for the rest of the year because they "may' be allowed to use them as of next year!!!!!

What are you smoking dude? I have ALWAYS maintained throughout this thread that Citroen being penalised for a breach of the rules is the right thing. My only beef is with the people who seem to maintain that Citroen set out to cheat and those who say the FIA is corrupt in this instance.

You and your boyfriend Bruce would make a great pair of cops. If you arrested someone you'd appear in court asking for the death sentence for minor offences and you wouldn't even have a solid motive for the crime is kind of something which you need.

Let's assume for a moment ST205GT4 (rather an appropriate username for a thread about "cheating" don't you think? :p ) is wrong and Citroen could have gained 5 seconds per km with these new end links. Why would Citroen bother to run unhomologated parts for their cars when they can just homologate them? This is the part which the "gods of rallying" have failed to answer and if you fail to prove motive in anything you fail to prove any intent. Perhaps you're still a bit pissed about the rainbow warrior I don't know? But that's my guess because to me that seems the only conceivable reasonable reason for having such a bee in your bonnet about such a minor violation.

[smokin'joe]

Denial, it dosn't matter how 'minor' the violation was, it was still a violation of the rules.

[Daniel]

In the end Citroen stuffed up. They had a part on the car that didn't meet the homologation, the homologation that they agreed their car complied to when they signed the entry form. So we know they cheated (for want of a better description).

I'll disagree with the cheating but I agree with you. They violated the rules so they were in the wrong :up:


We could argue about the penalty's from here to eternity but the reality is the FIA & their stewards aren't consistant & that is the issue. If an "illegal" car gets excluded, then it gets excluded, if it gets a time penalty then it gets a time penalty. The problem with time penalty's is that there is no guide as to how big the penalty is soit depends what scrutineer you get on the day.

It's like this in every form of motorsport and over the last few years in F1 we've seen varying levels of punishment for some drivers and not for others. Some drivers in F1 get stop and go penalties for minor offences and some seem to get away with bigger offences. I've outlined previously why I think the Fords deserved a bigger penalty but tbh if Citroen had got 5 minutes then I would have thought that reasonable too. The difference for me in the two cases is that Ford was running a part which if tried to homologate, would never have been approved whereas Citroen's part would have been approved. This might seem like a small difference but there's a big difference in intent.


The issue I have with the way this has happened is that if ford & mikko now lose the title there is no reason they can't finish the championship in court because of Citroens "questionable" penalty. Lets face it, MW will not let it rest if he loses the championship & Citroen got a 1min penalty where he has previousally copped 5mins.

Very true. Although I feel the Ford case is different I do feel Ford could potentially appeal the difference in penalties but I think the fact that by that time Citroen will probably legally be running this different part yet Ford won't be running those thinner windows will speak volumes about the differences in the offences. But, if Citroen were then given an additional 5 minute penalty I could understand.

P.S Thanks for being reasonable about this :up:

[Daniel]

Denial, it dosn't matter how 'minor' the violation was, it was still a violation of the rules.
Where have I denied this? :rolleyes: Stop acting as if I've said Citroen's penalty is unjust and that they did nothing wrong. I may have seemed a bit loopy before but it's you who is clearly bonkers now! I never said anything of the sort and if you continue with this I'll report your trolling to an admin because this isn't the first time in this thread I've explicitly said that I agree that Citroen has done something wrong.

[Daniel]

I'm not sure what the big fuss is about.

Running different end links is not going to pick you up 1 sec/km. And it's not like you can hide the things unlike TTE's magical restrictor which was designed not to be found. Big difference in intent.

Furthermore as Daniel correctly points out, Ford weren't excluded for having thinner windows a while back.

The only issue I can see is whether or not the time penalty applied is correct. I can see the case for hitting Citroen with a 5 min penalty as that's what had been meted out to Ford for a technical irregularity that wasn't considered bad enough to result in exclusion.

However, for whatever reason the stewards who were at the event deemed a 1 min penalty as commensurate with the breach. Suggesting that it's some sort of FIA plot in favour or Citroen sounds a bit like any other conspiracy theory to me. ie. unlikely.

:up:

I think Ford deserve a harsher penalty for the fact that their part was both unhomologated and in direct contravention of the regulations which stipulate that it must be at least 3.5mm thick (AFAIK) whereas Citroen's part was just unhomologated. The kangaroo court lawyers in here would have you believe that Citroen deliberately did this with absolutely no reasonable explanation as to why they'd do this. As I said above if Citroen were given 5 minute penalties I could have understood that as well.

Thanks also for being reasonable :)

Also just as some technical background here's a picture of a distant cousin of the offending part.

http://rdpshop.com/images/P/PSP-SUS-110%202.jpg

The anti-rollbar is the red bit and the black bit connecting it to the suspension arm is the end link or drop link as it is sometimes called. From what has been said this is the part of the suspension that Citroen modified but didn't homologate.

[Daniel]

Well you appear to have so much insight into the intent of the team, in using this illegal part, that I presumed you must have worked for them.

Oh, hang on. You're not basing your comments on the one or two line statement from Quesnel are you?
I'm sure there's a few stewards from various countries on this forum who could tell you that all competitors deny any wrong doing when asked to account for their actions in a hearing.

You don't suppose that, given their many decades of top level motorsport experience, it's reasonable to assume that they might fully understand the homologation process? And that their failure to comply might not have been just an innocent blunder but rather a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules?

Circumvent the rules? For what purpose? That's the bit which you've failed to establish. There's no doubt that Citroen have broken the rules. But tell me why any experienced team like Citroen would go out of their way to run a part which they could have just homologated but didn't?

Is it so difficult to understand that someone could just have screwed up? How often have we heard about a faulty batch of components in the WRC which have resulted in numerous retirements for top teams? if a trusted supplier can screw up a bunch of parts then why can the person in charge of homologation - who one can only assume is walking like John Wayne right about now - not overlook a revision to the droplink and neglect to get it homologated? We are dealing with humans and if your fellow countryman Joe is not able to understand that I think Citroen DID do something wrong then is it not possible that it was overlooked?

[Camelopard]

Can you see the part in this?

[Daniel]

Can you see the part in this?
Could you email me a proper copy? :) Would be easier that way, will send you my email address via PM :)

[Camelopard]

Or this?

[Daniel]

Or this?
If I'm not very much mistaken (and I probably am) the ARB link is the thing on the right hand side of the photo which goes from left to right.

[Carlo]

If I'm not very much mistaken (and I probably am) the ARB link is the thing on the right hand side of the photo which goes from left to right.

Yes you have identified the item in question, now consider that this link has been lengthened this would then reduce the twisting effect on the anti roll bar which means that you now have a softer bar setting than was origionally designed which means that you have more side to side weight transfer onto the outside wheels in any corner which will aid turn in and your ability to hold a line on tighter corners.

So, the modification was performance enhancing, at the very least any time penalty should have placed them behind all the legal WRC cars that finished the event. Personal opinion is that they should have been excluded from the results

While my views of the cars were limited to what I saw on TV I felt that the cars in question were running quite soft spring and roll bar rates coupled with quite hard shock absorber settings. Friends who were over the ditch viewing the event are of the same opinion

[Daniel]

Yes you have identified the item in question, now consider that this link has been lengthened this would then reduce the twisting effect on the anti roll bar which means that you now have a softer bar setting than was origionally designed which means that you have more side to side weight transfer onto the outside wheels in any corner which will aid turn in and your ability to hold a line on tighter corners.

So, the modification was performance enhancing, at the very least any time penalty should have placed them behind all the legal WRC cars that finished the event. Personal opinion is that they should have been excluded from the results

While my views of the cars were limited to what I saw on TV I felt that the cars in question were running quite soft spring and roll bar rates coupled with quite hard shock absorber settings. Friends who were over the ditch viewing the event are of the same opinion
It's not as simple as that though, I'm making a slight assumption but I'm pretty sure that Citroen could pretty much have an infinite number of different ARB's and coil springs that they can use so if they wanted to go for a softer or harder ARB they could just do so.

[dimviii]

It's not as simple as that though, I'm making a slight assumption but I'm pretty sure that Citroen could pretty much have an infinite number of different ARB's and coil springs that they can use so if they wanted to go for a softer or harder ARB they could just do so.

if you had a little bit of mechanical knowledge,it is very simple to understand that citroen was cheating.
Carlo is right 101%,but i am sure that you are not going to understand with useless posts,as always.

softer springs,with stiffer arbs is the key.But they hadn t homologate so stiff arbs cause they hadn t use in past so soft springs.
ie you have homologate arbs with diameter 21,23,25 mm.
in citroen tests they found that with a diameter of ie 27mm and softer springs the c4 in this terren is better.But you can t homologate a new diameter arb in 2 or 3 weeks time.Thats why they fit a longer end link.
Almost the same result,''giving'' more torsion to the arb.

For me the right was to exclude from rally.Even i am a fan of Seb and Citroen.

[Brother John]

No comments here on these thread, or ........nevertheless?
But no without words it works also! :D

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/animated/anim_04.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/freesmiley.php?smiley=animated/anim_04.gif) http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/sign/sign0094.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/freesmiley.php?smiley=sign/sign0094.gif) http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/sign/sign0095.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/freesmiley.php?smiley=sign/sign0095.gif)

[Daniel]

if you had a little bit of mechanical knowledge,it is very simple to understand that citroen was cheating.
Carlo is right 101%,but i am sure that you are not going to understand with useless posts,as always.

softer springs,with stiffer arbs is the key.But they hadn t homologate so stiff arbs cause they hadn t use in past so soft springs.
ie you have homologate arbs with diameter 21,23,25 mm.
in citroen tests they found that with a diameter of ie 27mm and softer springs the c4 in this terren is better.But you can t homologate a new diameter arb in 2 or 3 weeks time.Thats why they fit a longer end link.
Almost the same result,''giving'' more torsion to the arb.

For me the right was to exclude from rally.Even i am a fan of Seb and Citroen.

This is speculation though not unreasonable :up:

Bowler has contacts in the WRC and I'm sure Makinen was well informed of what happened and he said there was no performance to be gained so i have my doubts but it's a reasonable conclusion to come to I suppose.

EDIT:Thinking about it longer end links shouldn't actually make a difference. Sure if we were talking about a torsion bar which is linked to a trailing arm at one end and fixed to the chassis on the other end then the force is multiplied but this spring has two levers on the ends so while one multiplies the force the one on the other end will divide the force. Simple physics.

[smokin'joe]

it's all well and good having many different diameter bars available, but they are time consuming to replace the whole unit. therefore, if you make the links adjustable, the pre-load can be adjusted in seconds, not minutes, to the point the driver could do it between stages very easily.

[Carlo]

EDIT:Thinking about it longer end links shouldn't actually make a difference. Sure if we were talking about a torsion bar which is linked to a trailing arm at one end and fixed to the chassis on the other end then the force is multiplied but this spring has two levers on the ends so while one multiplies the force the one on the other end will divide the force. Simple physics.

Respectfully suggest that you think again and look at the design of a very simple swaybar / anti roll bar as fitted to your humble road car and work out what happens when you roll the body weight to one side of the car. The suspension on the light side does not compress does it.

Simple physics, try moving a heavy object with a 2 metre long crowbar then try moving it again with a one metre long crowbar. It is called applied leverage.

[dimviii]

This is speculation though not unreasonable :up:
.
No it is not a speculation.It is a fact,used by thousants of motorists at trck days all over the world.Playing with the height of the end link you give torsion at the arb.Same as Citroen with the increased length of the end link ''by mistake''
Have a look just to see how common it is.
http://images.google.gr/images?hl=el&um=1&q=end+links+adjustable&sa=N&start=0&ndsp=18

[OldF]

This is how I see it. If you look at the pic below you can see that with same movement of the suspension / wheel up, the angle with a longer link is less compared with a shorter one. Therefore the force to move the suspension / wheel upwards is smaller with the longer link (torque = force * distance) and also the twist of the ABR is also less which requires less force. This IMO suits better with a soft spring. The wheel can “follow” the road better.


In general I understand the function of an anti-roll bar is when cornering, the outer side wheel’s suspension compress but the anti-roll bar transfers this movement also to the inside wheel and “lifts” it up and therefore also transfers more weight to the outside wheel, i.e. the anti-roll bar resists the rolling of the body shell by trying to move the inner wheel up to same level as the outer wheel.

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/ABR.jpg

[Daniel]

Respectfully suggest that you think again and look at the design of a very simple swaybar / anti roll bar as fitted to your humble road car and work out what happens when you roll the body weight to one side of the car. The suspension on the light side does not compress does it.

Simple physics, try moving a heavy object with a 2 metre long crowbar then try moving it again with a one metre long crowbar. It is called applied leverage.

Yes but if you're using a longer lever to apply a force to a spring which applies the force to a longer lever on the other end it effectively cancels out the increase in leverage. Your example is equivalent to the example I gave of torsion bar rear suspension where one end of the bar is fixed and in the case of an ARB no ends are fixed.

As Smokin'joe says it actually affects pre-load which is totally different.

[Daniel]

it's all well and good having many different diameter bars available, but they are time consuming to replace the whole unit. therefore, if you make the links adjustable, the pre-load can be adjusted in seconds, not minutes, to the point the driver could do it between stages very easily.
I very much agree with you, it's completely about pre-load. If there was an increase in the distance between the mounting points then yes there may have been a small difference in performance.

[steve_spackman]

But where is Conrad?

Hopefully coming to his senses, that he is indeed not worthy of a drive in the WRC!

[Hartusvuori]

Today, responding to a suggestion from Eurosport journalist Stéphane Vrignaud that the public felt the penalties handed out in Australia were too severe, Quesnel said: "The public is right. As for us, we are still in shock. An administrative error has been punished by a sporting penalty and I do not understand why."http://www.wrc.com/jsp/index.jsp?lnk=101&id=6045&desc=Citroen+team+boss%3A+%27We+are+still+in+shock %27+

What public? I've gotten completely opposite picture from the case...

[Juha_Koo]

Penalties were too severe? LOL.

[Daniel]

Penalties were too severe? LOL.
Yeah I think that's a bit rich. Although I don't believe Citroen did anything which was outrageously wrong, they did break the rules and were penalised. End of story.....

[Saabaru]

What a bunch of crybabies! They should have been disqualified! Why would the WRC even put this garbage on its website?

[anesa]

Photos of the parts in question on today's GPWeek P16
http://www.gpweek.com/PDF/GP064.pdf

[Daniel]

Photos of the parts in question on today's GPWeek P16
http://www.gpweek.com/PDF/GP064.pdf
LOL

So the part was homologated but a picture was missing.

Now it's obvious that there was no cheating going on and I'm sure all the people who were on here preaching about cheating etc etc will come back say how wrong they were and so on and so forth? :rotflmao:


the part itself had already been homologated but that the team never noticed that a picture of the part used on the cars in Australia was missing from the official papers.

P.S Thanks for the link :)

[Brother John]

I never come back to say that the the french are not wrong.
They spoil still the future from WRC and even F1. http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/rolleye/rolleye0012.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/freesmiley.php?smiley=rolleye/rolleye0012.gif)

[Daniel]

I never come back to say that the the french are not wrong.
They spoil still the future from WRC and even F1. http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/rolleye/rolleye0012.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/freesmiley.php?smiley=rolleye/rolleye0012.gif)
I think you'll find that Flabio Briatore is Italian and Pat Symonds is British :rolleyes: But don't let the truth get in the way of your illogical anti-French sentiments :p

[MJW]

I must admit from the story in gpweek.com it does seem an embarassing error, and not an attempt at cheating. However, based on that I think the penalty was about right, afterall Ford had 5 mins with those "thin" windows, and that was a deliberate attempt at gaining a weight advantage.