All Ford Focus get 5 min penalty

[Doogie]

Just noticed this of wrc.com, anybody confirm??



Stewards have awarded a 5-minute penalty to six Ford drivers at Vodafone Rally de Portugal. The cars of Marcus Gronholm (No. 3), Mikko Hirvonen (No. 4), Jari-Matti Latvala (No. 9), Henning Solberg (No. 10), Matthew Wilson (No. 16), and Gareth MacHale (No. 23) were all affected by the penalty.

After the Stewards received a written report from the FIA Technical Delegate, which stated that the rear side windows (right and left) did not comply with the homologation form of the cars, the entrants were summoned.

The rules state that the side windows on a World Rally Car should measure a minimum of 3.5mm, instead of 3mm, which was what the Ford windows measured. As a result, Stewards awarded the penalty to the above cars as well as a penalty of a reprimand to each of the Entrants.

[MJW]

Being discussed in the main Rally Portugal thread.

[Curryhead]

seems it is official, I thought it was about the cars weight, but no, the thickness of the rear windows???? seems a bit harsh, but I suppose rules are rules :/

[ChickenMcNugget]

I presume that's what's been implemented in the Pickems results in order to create such chaos with the scores? Naturally, I'm rather selfishly delighted to see I've vaulted up the order... :|

[Micke_VOC]

Here is the official statement:
http://www.rallydeportugal.pt/suport...o5ENUpdate.pdf

[Ranger]

Would have been a pretty good April Fool's joke.

[Brother John]

Rules are rules that is correctly but there are too much rules and for this reason iblame the F.I.A!

I.M.O. it is always same the subject.
The rules for wrc cars are too complicated, wrc cars must more back to basic, I mean no ore lesser Hi Tech and more standard body parts.
Make the minimum weight higher and the gearbox no small box with Hi Tech , framework and more back to basic like regular cars!

There is so much more to say, I´l wait for responses and reactions! :s mokin:

[Helstar]

I think this is really a stupid decision, maybe a 'yellow card' would have been better (= ok you didn't do it on purpose and I know the cars aren't faster ... but if I get you another time then I will give you a penalty).
Really stupid decision.

[Gard]

I think this is really a stupid decision, maybe a 'yellow card' would have been better (= ok you didn't do it on purpose and I know the cars aren't faster ... but if I get you another time then I will give you a penalty).
Really stupid decision.

I also would like to see this kind of penalty. In cases like this, they could deduct manu points when getting 2 warnings (yellow cards)

[Peugeot206WRC]

One thing I dont understand is why they didnt find this in the inspection before the rally (I thought they checked these things then).
In that case they shouldve tell Ford in the beginning their rearwindow wasnt correct so they can fix it.
This would prevent situations like this (like in Sweden with the fuel pump, really stupid).
Cheating like switching non allowed parts during the rally cant be prevent by this, but lot of other things probably.

[Caroline]

I am sitting on the fence here because I believe that rules are there for a reason and shouldn't be broken. Then I take a closer look at some of the rules and the penalties that apply and can't help but wonder what on earth is going on. I think that there should have been a smaller penalty or a warning given. I am mostly agreeing with the first post I guess :)

[1LM1]

The time when a penalty occur and the harshness of this penalty are sometimes strange.
Remember 2004. The water pump blades story of the 307 WRC (in plastic and not in aluminium because both pumps existed in marketed street cars (one part was factory first mount, the other was spare part). No advantage either and the decison was the EXCLUSION of Marcus. Strangely, the decision occured after a rare Gronhölm's win that year. Why at this time ? We will never know. All I know is that the decison was moreover very harsh even compared to this one today.

[bowler]

One thing I dont understand is why they didnt find this in the inspection before the rally (I thought they checked these things then).
In that case they shouldve tell Ford in the beginning their rearwindow wasnt correct so they can fix it.
This would prevent situations like this (like in Sweden with the fuel pump, really stupid).
Cheating like switching non allowed parts during the rally cant be prevent by this, but lot of other things probably.

Manufacturers WRC cars are not scutineered now. They are left to the Team to make sure that they comply. The responsibility then falls to the team, as it did in this case.

[N.O.T]

As i said....FIA must adopt a standard penalty system for all the listed infractions they have. Its totally unfair for everyone to rely on the current FIA / Organiser officials they use in each rally.

If they standardise their penalty system none would complain simply because you would know the penalty for each infraction and you would be more careful. For example in our case if the fIA had a standard 5 min penalty for thinner windows the teams would consider checking them before each event....now that we don't have a standard system the teams might not bother thinking that its a minor thing and thus they could avoid checking it.

About the decision i think its too harsh, issuing a warning would be more appropriate.

[turves]

I think if there is a performance advantage gained, then a time or points penalty, but if no performance advantage gained a financial penalty.

[JAM]

Interesting that 5 mins to Gronholm put him in 4th behind the two C4... Ford made a mistake but would be interesting to know how did FIA suspected of this tickness problem...

[N.O.T]

Ford made a mistake but would be interesting to know how did FIA suspected of this tickness problem...

Indeed...and i think that the person who informed the FIA must be from the Ford Team or very close to the team....because such a problem is definately not visible.

Of course there is the case where the officials just got lucky and checked that thing because they had nothing else or better to do :D :D :D

[Roy]

Would have been a pretty good April Fool's joke.

I love this april joke... if it was a joke... All beacause A rear window. What a penalty!
Stupid of the FIA. offcourse Ford makes a fault, but this penalty is grazy. The car choose for a other penalty. 5 miniutes wil the same for missing a stage or change a motor! And we talk about 0.5mm!

[MikeD]

The whole question is weather the penalty fits the crime ... and in my book it doesn't!

No doubt that Ford needs a penalty, but 5 min is way to harsh. I agree with what N.O.T wrote, that we/FIA needs a standard penalty system.

[Brother John]

Let rally be rally and not HI-technical thinks on wheels likeF1! :rolleyes:
A financial penalty would be better in this case.

[Doon]

I agree rules are rules, but something is wrong here! Cast your minds back to Monte 2002, when loeb and citroen were given only a 1 min penalty for an illegal tyre change, this was a small punishment for something that would have given a significant performance advantage!

The Fords have been given a penalty 5 times greater, all for a window that was 0.5mm too think. Where is the logic in this?

Cheers

[Doug Woods]

... Ford made a mistake but would be interesting to know how did FIA suspected of this tickness problem...

Exactly. Unless Portugal has the most fanatical technical inspectors in the world, this was most likely at an issue raised by someone very familiar with the cars.

[Finni]

Weird, first they were issuing underweigh and when it was solved they found other crime..

[vilamoura2007]

Inside Sebastian Loeb's car on leg 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt4S8MDN-58

[Shrike]

That is outside his car :)

[vilamoura2007]

it depends on the point of view LOL

[Corny]

I agree rules are rules, but something is wrong here! Cast your minds back to Monte 2002, when loeb and citroen were given only a 1 min penalty for an illegal tyre change, this was a small punishment for something that would have given a significant performance advantage!

The Fords have been given a penalty 5 times greater, all for a window that was 0.5mm too think. Where is the logic in this?

Cheers

That were 2 minutes in Monte 02!
But I see your point, yes

[Addicted]

Maybe the penalty should always be exclusion. Then you know it all the time that cheating will give you hard penalty, but the penalty would be same for everyone no matter how or what you cheat.

[Isthmus]

Ford accept Portugal penalties

By Glenn FreemanMonday, April 2nd 2007, 10:14 GMT

Ford have accepted the five-minute time penalties given to their drivers at the end of Rally Portugal on Sunday.

Six drivers were given the penalties when officials found that their rear side windows did not conform with the homologation requirements.

The decision cost Marcus Gronholm the lead in the championship to Sebastien Loeb, but his team will not be appealing the decision.

The team were informed of the decision at a meeting with the event stewards, and they have admitted that it was their own mistake.

BP Ford team director Malcolm Wilson said: "We were disappointed to learn from the scrutineers that the team made an error. We will launch a detailed investigation into how this could have happened at M-Sport."

Gronholm is just one point behind Loeb, while Ford have retained their lead in the manufacturers' standings.

M-Sport made an error, end of discussion.

[Brother John]

The reaction from Ford can be very disappointing for wrc by the end of the year!
For example Ford leaves WRC and going till IRC! :p :

[Helstar]

Weird, first they were issuing underweigh and when it was solved they found other crime..
Correct. All these things are really suspect. It's like somebody wanted the Citroens to take the more possible points here, in Portugal. Or he just hates Ford lol

[newaddict]

I agree rules are rules, but something is wrong here! Cast your minds back to Monte 2002, when loeb and citroen were given only a 1 min penalty for an illegal tyre change, this was a small punishment for something that would have given a significant performance advantage!

The Fords have been given a penalty 5 times greater, all for a window that was 0.5mm too think. Where is the logic in this?

Cheers

citroen changed the tires for the overnight parc, not stage runs. they had the opportunity to change the tires in the morning after the overnite parc.
no performance advantage was given. the cars were on display that night and cit. decided to put clean, fresh tires on the car for viewing. if the tires were ruined and undrivable between the end of the stages and to service in the morning then it would have been an advantage. this was not the case. it was just a rules infraction that they could not change the tires before the overnite display/parc. final tire decision for the morning stages was made at service right before the run of the morning stages. this infraction did not affect performance in the timed stages.

[N]

and having the rear windows 0.5mm too thin is also a performance advantage?

[Erki]

and having the rear windows 0.5mm too thin is also a performance advantage?

Probably not, but it can be considered as a safety issue.

[Tomski]

Does any know what the minimum, or even maximum thickness for the windows is?

[Grany]

(...)
this was a small punishment
(...)


Lose the victory is a "small punishment"?
For the true reason -> newaddict's post.


and having the rear windows 0.5mm too thin is also a performance advantage?

Perhaps a lower centre of gravity?

[ste898]

Citroen have the FIA in their pockets and this is the reason for this nothing more!!!

[Roy]

Does any know what the minimum, or even maximum thickness for the windows is?

The homologation of the Focus is official 3.5mm It was now (only!) 0.5mm thinner.

[LotusElise]

I agree with everyone suggesting an organised system of penalties for rules infractions.

I also find it hard to believe that cars are no longer scrutineered pre-rally, which even club organisers do. If the thinner window was a safety issue, the team needed to know before starting.

[TMorel]

All this "oooh the FIA were picking on Ford" - you ever thought that Ford deserved it? Y'know, maybe if they built cars that were the correct weight and had the correct parts fitted we'd not be in this mess.

and if the window thickness is a safety issue then I think they were bloody lucky to get away with just a time penalty - we all know how they over react.
and while we're talking about over reacting - Gigi standing on a roof of a moving car. The FIA will exclude you out for doing a donut, am amazed they didn't give him a life ban for that

[jidoka]

All this "oooh the FIA were picking on Ford" - you ever thought that Ford deserved it? Y'know, maybe if they built cars that were the correct weight and had the correct parts fitted we'd not be in this mess.


True

[Carlo]

and having the rear windows 0.5mm too thin is also a performance advantage?

Yes. Every Kg that you can reduce the cars weight by is an advantage. Every Kg that you can take off a higher point of the vehicle structure lowers the centre of gravity.

You don't make mistakes like this, you plan excuses if you are caught.

[gloomyDAY]

Does anyone think that this decision had anything to do with Petter? Think about it...Petter just got catapulted into second place over two rivals and now he's back in the spotlight with points.

I love Petter, but the stewards decision is sleazy. This sport just got a black eye for the rest of the season.

[L5->R5/CR]

Does anyone think that this decision had anything to do with Petter? Think about it...Petter just got catapulted into second place over two rivals and now he's back in the spotlight with points.

I love Petter, but the stewards decision is sleazy. This sport just got a black eye for the rest of the season.

Curiousity here.

Are the stewards sleazy for giving them a 5 minute penalty or for not excluding them?

I'll post my own conspiracy theory after your response so as to not taint it.

[leno]

For the teams i think it is better time penalty, because in case you have lots of money you can do what ever you wants. But i dont get it why organisators get the financial penalty? i think spectators should paid becouse the weren t on safe place

[koko0703]

I agree with everyone, there must be a consistant way of handing out penalty. Whether it is performance gain or not, there was a violation but how the penalty was handed out is very questionable....

[sills]

nobody seems to notice that it was'nt just one car or one window it was 6 cars, so this most surley of been known and I think the penalty is heavy but fair as it was only windows, but because considering the amount of cars involved the penalty is light as it wasnt just one Ford but six, exclusion could have been a simple choice for the officals to make with that many cars failing

[Helstar]

and while we're talking about over reacting - Gigi standing on a roof of a moving car. The FIA will exclude you out for doing a donut, am amazed they didn't give him a life ban for that
There are some differences ... Gigi was not ahead of an official Citroen and isn't high in championship points too. So maybe the 'palace' doesn't see him like a threat and leave him doing these kind of shows (which people like ... no ?) ^^
But I see your point. I don't know if they talked to him either. Think if most of the drivers start to do that, it would became boring, not only 'dangerous' (for themselves).

[gloomyDAY]

Curiousity here.

Are the stewards sleazy for giving them a 5 minute penalty or for not excluding them?

I'll post my own conspiracy theory after your response so as to not taint it.
I think the penalty was harsh, but fair. The way the stewards quantified a 5 minute penalty is beyond my comprehension because exclusion would have been a more sensible choice.

[jparker]

Weird, first they were issuing underweigh and when it was solved they found other crime..

That sounds like explenation to me, not a question. Remember the rock in the trunk?

[Tomi]

It just came from tv that Ford has been warned and advised several times by FIA to do something about the underweight of the car.

[Tomi]

I just heard from a very reliable source that the back window of the Focus also was measured and it was 0,5 mm thicker than supposed.

[White Sauron]

I just heard from a very reliable source that the back window of the Focus also was measured and it was 0,5 mm thicker than supposed.

Huh!!! They should have been disqualified for this!!!

[L5->R5/CR]

Huh!!! They should have been disqualified for this!!!



Doesn't the requirements only state that it is a 3.5mm minimum, not an exact specification.

[TMorel]

but surely if you add it all together and take an average it works out fine?!?!?

[jso1985]

Gigi standing on a roof of a moving car. The FIA will exclude you out for doing a donut, am amazed they didn't give him a life ban for that


well the donuts mess was because it was a threat to EVERYONES safety, Gigi's act was a threat only for himself, so I guess the FIA didn't care ;)


allright... another chance for the Citroën haters to start theories right? :rolleyes:

I don't know who's more stupid then, Citroën for wanting the FIA's help when they don't need it or Ford for not having their cars fullfilling the rules when they know the FIA is after them... :mark: :rolleyes:

They broke the rules and that's it, I agree the penalty was way too harsh anyway.

But I bet if Citroën would have get the penalty, certain members claiming Ford's penalty was too harsh would be saying that the bloody cheating frenchies should have been DQ from the rally.

It takes time to accept that the driver/team you hate is just better than the driver/team you like, and they're no cheats or something else :s mokin: took me 2 years for me in F1.

[Tomski]

I'd still like to know how the hell did anyone spot the side windows were 0.5mm too thin.

Even if the width is stated in the homologation documents, does checking the width form part of any sort of normal check? I suspect not as it would surely have come to light before now.

So what made them look & check? Did someone notice that there was a manufacturers label say 3mm thick, or were they where ans what to look for?

[jso1985]

maybe the FIA started checking any parts of the car that might have caused it to be underweight at the start of the day

[ZequeArgentina]

If there is a rule regarding window thickness, it is one of the items it could be checked. If someone agreed a minimum thickness is as important as to be ruled, so it is perfect that sometime they checked it (it must be surely the case that 06 Focus have been checked here for the first time since introduction, taht is why all 5 cars were penalized, but i should have been 7 if Munchi´s cars have entered he rally).

[A.F.F.]

I just heard from a very reliable source that the back window of the Focus also was measured and it was 0,5 mm thicker than supposed.

I heard from very reliable source that members of the FIA have 0,5 m thicker skull than the rest of us.

[Zes]

I'd still like to know how the hell did anyone spot the side windows were 0.5mm too thin.

Even if the width is stated in the homologation documents, does checking the width form part of any sort of normal check? I suspect not as it would surely have come to light before now.

So what made them look & check? Did someone notice that there was a manufacturers label say 3mm thick, or were they where ans what to look for?


As I understood stewards has a list of objects they can look for. Some objects they check every time and some they pick up randomly. The window thickness was probably one of those randomly picked (unless somebody gave them a hint). Most likely the windows has been illegal in all races this year and also last year. They just happened to check this in Portugal.

[Fleur]

Yeah, 5 mins for .5mm is way over the top. Fine the teams, or yellow card system would have made much more sense!!!

[xavier]

The FIA is completly out of their mind!

Last year, they decide to fine Subaru and Mitsubshi because they were under weight which give them a compatitive edge. And now they penalized Ford of 5 minutes (!!!) for something that does NOT give any advantage.

The other way around would have been much more logical!!! the FIA is a disgrace to the sport!

Edit: It was 2 years ago for Subaru... time flies...

[kakus]

And 2003 Solberg's Subaru under weight for 8 Kg : Juste a fine. ( I don't remember where )

Loeb loose the title for that.

[sills]

The FIA is completly out of their mind!

Last year, they decide to fine Subaru and Mitsubshi because they were under weight which give them a compatitive edge. And now they penalized Ford of 5 minutes (!!!) for something that does NOT give any advantage.

The other way around would have been much more logical!!! the FIA is a disgrace to the sport!

Edit: It was 2 years ago for Subaru... time flies...

you say it does nit give an advantage it might be only a small amount of wait but it lowers the center of gravity of the car even its only a very small bit it is an advantage..

and also i think 5 minutes is a fair enough decision considering the amount of cars involved, 6 ford focus wr cars involved that if u ask me could have been enough for exclusion, the 5 min time penalty would of been harsh if it had only been one or may-be two of the cars but I think they were lucky not to be excluded, as so many were involved all 6 2006 spec wrc focus's that were in the rally failed the meassurment test,

[alleskids]

1 mm of glass, 1 full square metre weights 2,5 kilo's. So, 0,5 mm difference on a back side windows, say 0,5 x 0,5 metre is still approximately 310 gram, a window, so 600 gram per car. All bits are helping, like having no hand brake handle on the car, to minimise the weight of the car and the centre of gravity.

[Grany]

Moreover Loriaux is known to be obsessed by a low centre of gravity.
That doesn't astonish me. Finally it's a lenient decision especially if they cheat since 2006...

[Fleur]

1 mm of glass, 1 full square metre weights 2,5 kilo's. So, 0,5 mm difference on a back side windows, say 0,5 x 0,5 metre is still approximately 310 gram, a window, so 600 gram per car. All bits are helping, like having no hand brake handle on the car, to minimise the weight of the car and the centre of gravity.

So does that mean they tell their drivers not to eat breakfast, so as not to add an extra 500grams weight? Not getting at you, but rather at the weight obsession, if this is in fact the reason they have done it.....

[L5->R5/CR]

So does that mean they tell their drivers not to eat breakfast, so as not to add an extra 500grams weight? Not getting at you, but rather at the weight obsession, if this is in fact the reason they have done it.....



They just add laxative instead. Lets the cars keep getting lighter and lighter all rally...


Sorry, had to do it..

[jparker]

So does that mean they tell their drivers not to eat breakfast, so as not to add an extra 500grams weight? Not getting at you, but rather at the weight obsession, if this is in fact the reason they have done it.....

Actually, I do believe Ford are suffering from weight obsession.

[xavier]

you say it does nit give an advantage it might be only a small amount of wait but it lowers the center of gravity of the car even its only a very small bit it is an advantage..

oh come on!, 0.5 mm! even if the total weight difference is 0.5 kg, it's out of total car weight of 1230kg.
that lowers the center of gravity by 0.6 mm!!!! alright, maybe it added .0001 sec per km so 0.04 second over the rally!

anyway my point is not that they should not be penalized, but that infringment to car regulation should result in the same penalties for all the team...

The FIA has close their eye on Subaru in more than one occassion.

[Zico]

From the Cartoon thread I was reminded of this thread when I saw this particularly interesting one.. http://www.jimbamber.co.uk/cgi-bin/jbpage.pl?action=page&title=Ford%20Windows&page=2007/0712

Quote- "On the Portugal WRC the Ford team was caught with their windows down. Before you knock them just take note that one of the other top teams changed their side windows before the finish, in full view of the tv cameras while their driver was boasting of his drive!"

Does anyone know what driver/team this may have been?

[SubaruNorway]

They didn't change them it was the tv crews remowing the cameras and tape