Ferrari's Inside Job

[rohanweb]

I feel the whole mclaren data stealing fiasco is an inside job of Ferrari..
who well planned and executed this saga obviously expecting the mclaren (thier closest championship contenders) to be thrown out of this years WC & possible banning them of racing for the next years.

in the absense of Michael schum'r, Ferrari needed some time , possibly few years to bring in Kimi/massa as wdc winners for ferrari. they were scared that mclaren have brought up a goodcar this year and WC Alonso got hired & this is a serious threat for thier ferrari wc ambitions, nevertheless Alonso will improve over the next years and mclaren may just become too hard to catch up.

so they broght in a well planned strategy of 'befriending' some tech guys in mclaren, using thier 'unwanted' english engineer stepney, exchanged some material to bring mclaren to its knees.. there were no evidence that the mclaren cars were using the ferrari stuffs, otherwise thier drivers also would have thrown out of the champ'p for sure.

I believe the FIA,other teams & F1 fans fell head over heals for the 'ferrari strategy' which broght lots lots of sympathies to them also..
..welldone Montzemello..welldone Todt.


Goodluck to Ferrari for winning the constructors & drivers championships.. money well spent on plans like this.. we will see more from you!

[raikk]

I feel the whole mclaren data stealing fiasco is an inside job of Ferrari..
who well planned and executed this saga obviously expecting the mclaren (thier closest championship contenders) to be thrown out of this years WC & possible banning them of racing for the next years.

in the absense of Michael schum'r, Ferrari needed some time , possibly few years to bring in Kimi/massa as wdc winners for ferrari. they were scared that mclaren have brought up a goodcar this year and WC Alonso got hired & this is a serious threat for thier ferrari wc ambitions, nevertheless Alonso will improve over the next years and mclaren may just become too hard to catch up.

so they broght in a well planned strategy of 'befriending' some tech guys in mclaren, using thier 'unwanted' english engineer stepney, exchanged some material to bring mclaren to its knees.. there were no evidence that the mclaren cars were using the ferrari stuffs, otherwise thier drivers also would have thrown out of the champ'p for sure.

I believe the FIA,other teams & F1 fans fell head over heals for the 'ferrari strategy' which broght lots lots of sympathies to them also..
..welldone Montzemello..welldone Todt.


Goodluck to Ferrari for winning the constructors & drivers championships.. money well spent on plans like this.. we will see more from you!

who knows these days with the FIA... who knows..

[wmcot]

I feel the whole mclaren data stealing fiasco is an inside job of Ferrari..
who well planned and executed this saga obviously expecting the mclaren (thier closest championship contenders) to be thrown out of this years WC & possible banning them of racing for the next years.

in the absense of Michael schum'r, Ferrari needed some time , possibly few years to bring in Kimi/massa as wdc winners for ferrari. they were scared that mclaren have brought up a goodcar this year and WC Alonso got hired & this is a serious threat for thier ferrari wc ambitions, nevertheless Alonso will improve over the next years and mclaren may just become too hard to catch up.

so they broght in a well planned strategy of 'befriending' some tech guys in mclaren, using thier 'unwanted' english engineer stepney, exchanged some material to bring mclaren to its knees.. there were no evidence that the mclaren cars were using the ferrari stuffs, otherwise thier drivers also would have thrown out of the champ'p for sure.

I believe the FIA,other teams & F1 fans fell head over heals for the 'ferrari strategy' which broght lots lots of sympathies to them also..
..welldone Montzemello..welldone Todt.


Goodluck to Ferrari for winning the constructors & drivers championships.. money well spent on plans like this.. we will see more from you!


"One of the reasons for conspiracy theories is an assumption that people in high places always know what they are doing. When they do something that makes no sense, devious reasons are imagined by conspiracy theorists, when in fact it may be due to plain old ignorance and incompetence." - Thomas Sowell

[Rollo]

Every engineer knows that in order to achieve true greatness, it is imperative to always keep a clear, unclouded mind and to protect one's secrets from those who would seek to steal or plagiarize the radical new designs of a hard-working genius. The Tinfoil Hat is the logical result of this profound insight, combining tinfoil's powerful mental shielding properties with the excellent principles of the Faraday Cage.

The only drawback is that the increased focus provided by the Tinfoil Hat may sometimes lead the wearer to achieve a superlative level of mental clarity, through which he can see the manifold subtle connections between seemingly unrelated facts and events, revealing to the wearer a much sharper image of the truth. Resisting the urge to share this truth with other, less illuminated people can be difficult, indeed.

[Hawkmoon]

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :dozey:

I'm sorry rohanweb but that's one of the more absurd conspiracy theories we have going at the moment. But I'll play along anyway!

There's one problem with this cunning plan. How did Ferrari know that Coughlan would actually use the information they so cunningly provided for him? They had no way of knowing whether Coughlan would use the data or simply alert the authorities immediately (as he should have done).

If Coughlan didn't use the information would they have moved on to the next senior McLaren engineer and see what he would do?

Ferrari showed amazing foresight as well. They put this plan into motion before the season even started. They must have had a lot of faith that the MP4-22 wouldn't be another winless MP4-21. Even after they thrashed the McLarens by a second a lap in Australia they still felt the need to continue with this cunningly evil plan.

Not only that, they somehow convinced Mosely and the 26 members of the WMSC to back the plan and actually kick McLaren out of the championship.

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm taking the piss out of you but this theory of yours, like most conspiracy theories, is so far away from reality that it's worth nothing more than a laugh.

[wmcot]

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :dozey:

I'm sorry rohanweb but that's one of the more absurd conspiracy theories we have going at the moment. But I'll play along anyway!

There's one problem with this cunning plan. How did Ferrari know that Coughlan would actually use the information they so cunningly provided for him? They had no way of knowing whether Coughlan would use the data or simply alert the authorities immediately (as he should have done).

If Coughlan didn't use the information would they have moved on to the next senior McLaren engineer and see what he would do?

Ferrari showed amazing foresight as well. They put this plan into motion before the season even started. They must have had a lot of faith that the MP4-22 wouldn't be another winless MP4-21. Even after they thrashed the McLarens by a second a lap in Australia they still felt the need to continue with this cunningly evil plan.

Not only that, they somehow convinced Mosely and the 26 members of the WMSC to back the plan and actually kick McLaren out of the championship.

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm taking the piss out of you but this theory of yours, like most conspiracy theories, is so far away from reality that it's worth nothing more than a laugh.

Coughlan was a Ferrari plant years ago. He was the F1 equivalent to a "sleeper cell" in terrorism! :rotflmao:

[pino]

I feel the whole mclaren data stealing fiasco is an inside job of Ferrari..
who well planned and executed this saga obviously expecting the mclaren (thier closest championship contenders) to be thrown out of this years WC & possible banning them of racing for the next years.

in the absense of Michael schum'r, Ferrari needed some time , possibly few years to bring in Kimi/massa as wdc winners for ferrari. they were scared that mclaren have brought up a goodcar this year and WC Alonso got hired & this is a serious threat for thier ferrari wc ambitions, nevertheless Alonso will improve over the next years and mclaren may just become too hard to catch up.

so they broght in a well planned strategy of 'befriending' some tech guys in mclaren, using thier 'unwanted' english engineer stepney, exchanged some material to bring mclaren to its knees.. there were no evidence that the mclaren cars were using the ferrari stuffs, otherwise thier drivers also would have thrown out of the champ'p for sure.

I believe the FIA,other teams & F1 fans fell head over heals for the 'ferrari strategy' which broght lots lots of sympathies to them also..
..welldone Montzemello..welldone Todt.


Goodluck to Ferrari for winning the constructors & drivers championships.. money well spent on plans like this.. we will see more from you!

How about Ferrari was the better Team where everyone worked for everyone, and for the same goal...unlike McLaren ? ;)

[wmcot]

How about Ferrari was the better Team where everyone worked for everyone, and for the same goal...unlike McLaren ? ;)

Nah. Where's the drama and suspense in that? :)

[pino]

Nah. Where's the drama and suspense in that? :)

No drama, No suspense, in Sport (same in Life) you get what you deserve ;)

[AndyRAC]

Sorry, but I'm still puzzled. This whole saga started with a Ferrari employee handing the info over to a McLaren employee, ( not McLaren walking in and stealing it). Yeah, they shouldn't have used the info, but what about Stepney handing the info over and Ferrari not controling their employee? Personally speaking, that's almost double standards, why no punishment?
I'm by no means a big McLaren fan, but some of the vitriol against them is unbelievable, I mean they haven't murdered anybody or committed paedophilia have they?
Anyway I'm looking forward to an exciting end to the WRC, free from innuendo and controversy, and most importantly, a SPORT first.

[555-04Q2]

I feel the whole mclaren data stealing fiasco is an inside job of Ferrari..
who well planned and executed this saga obviously expecting the mclaren (thier closest championship contenders) to be thrown out of this years WC & possible banning them of racing for the next years.

in the absense of Michael schum'r, Ferrari needed some time , possibly few years to bring in Kimi/massa as wdc winners for ferrari. they were scared that mclaren have brought up a goodcar this year and WC Alonso got hired & this is a serious threat for thier ferrari wc ambitions, nevertheless Alonso will improve over the next years and mclaren may just become too hard to catch up.

so they broght in a well planned strategy of 'befriending' some tech guys in mclaren, using thier 'unwanted' english engineer stepney, exchanged some material to bring mclaren to its knees.. there were no evidence that the mclaren cars were using the ferrari stuffs, otherwise thier drivers also would have thrown out of the champ'p for sure.

I believe the FIA,other teams & F1 fans fell head over heals for the 'ferrari strategy' which broght lots lots of sympathies to them also..
..welldone Montzemello..welldone Todt.


Goodluck to Ferrari for winning the constructors & drivers championships.. money well spent on plans like this.. we will see more from you!

Welcome to the off season bull$h!t people :down:

[Tomi]

in the absense of Michael schum'r, Ferrari needed some time , possibly few years to bring in Kimi/massa as wdc winners for ferrari. they were scared that mclaren have brought up a goodcar this year and WC Alonso got hired & this is a serious threat for thier ferrari wc ambitions, nevertheless Alonso will improve over the next years and mclaren may just become too hard to catch up.

so they broght in a well planned strategy of 'befriending' some tech guys in mclaren, using thier 'unwanted' english engineer stepney, exchanged some material to bring mclaren to its knees.. there were no evidence that the mclaren cars were using the ferrari stuffs, otherwise thier drivers also would have thrown out of the champ'p for sure.

So why did McLaren not hand over the info to FIA right away after they got it?? Thiskind of phony conspiracy stories makes McLaren actually look like even bigger loosers than what they actually are.

[Daniel]

I feel the whole mclaren data stealing fiasco is an inside job of Ferrari..
who well planned and executed this saga obviously expecting the mclaren (thier closest championship contenders) to be thrown out of this years WC & possible banning them of racing for the next years.

in the absense of Michael schum'r, Ferrari needed some time , possibly few years to bring in Kimi/massa as wdc winners for ferrari. they were scared that mclaren have brought up a goodcar this year and WC Alonso got hired & this is a serious threat for thier ferrari wc ambitions, nevertheless Alonso will improve over the next years and mclaren may just become too hard to catch up.

so they broght in a well planned strategy of 'befriending' some tech guys in mclaren, using thier 'unwanted' english engineer stepney, exchanged some material to bring mclaren to its knees.. there were no evidence that the mclaren cars were using the ferrari stuffs, otherwise thier drivers also would have thrown out of the champ'p for sure.

I believe the FIA,other teams & F1 fans fell head over heals for the 'ferrari strategy' which broght lots lots of sympathies to them also..
..welldone Montzemello..welldone Todt.


Goodluck to Ferrari for winning the constructors & drivers championships.. money well spent on plans like this.. we will see more from you!
Stop lying. There is evidence they used the data. The two cars are different cars so they're not just going to copy the Ferrari front wing or something like thats so you're not going to find "Ferrari" parts on the McLaren. Stop lying and deal with the fact that McLaren were in the wrong and were penalised. This sort of mindless conspiracy theory serves only to make people not want to post in this forum.

[TL]

Sorry, but I'm still puzzled. This whole saga started with a Ferrari employee handing the info over to a McLaren employee, ( not McLaren walking in and stealing it). Yeah, they shouldn't have used the info, but what about Stepney handing the info over and Ferrari not controling their employee? Personally speaking, that's almost double standards, why no punishment?
I'm by no means a big McLaren fan, but some of the vitriol against them is unbelievable, I mean they haven't murdered anybody or committed paedophilia have they?
Anyway I'm looking forward to an exciting end to the WRC, free from innuendo and controversy, and most importantly, a SPORT first.

I never understood the logic in all this either Andy (see other threads)..how one can call this spying while the info was given voluntary ! than what about all them photographers who take pics in the pits and give them out to the teams ? Should they also be prosecuted for spying from now on ?

also this whole email story with FA...also very weird..I mean why was FA exchanging this kinda info by mail.......Don't these guys see each other on track weekly ?

Maybe Ferrari have there reasons to thank Fernando the way they did....Montezemelo almost congratulated him more than his own drivers !

[Daniel]

I never understood the logic in all this either Andy (see other threads)..how one can call this spying while the info was given voluntary ! than what about all them photographers who take pics in the pits and give them out to the teams ? Should they also be prosecuted for spying from now on ?

also this whole email story with FA...also very weird..I mean why was FA exchanging this kinda info by mail.......Don't these guys see each other on track weekly ?

Maybe Ferrari have there reasons to thank Fernando the way they did....Montezemelo almost congratulated him more than his own drivers !
The info was given out voluntarily? Industrial espionage isn't always storming the oppositions premises with 300 soldiers or breaking in and stealing. Sometimes it's less obvious (like it was in this case). If you can prove that Ferrari "asked" for the info to be stolen then do it. Otherwise don't go on about this laughable conspiracy theory.....

Why don't people accept what's happened and move on? If it was the opposite way around the same people would be baying for Ferrari blood.....

[TL]

The info was given out voluntarily? Industrial espionage isn't always storming the oppositions premises with 300 soldiers or breaking in and stealing. Sometimes it's less obvious (like it was in this case). If you can prove that Ferrari "asked" for the info to be stolen then do it. Otherwise don't go on about this laughable conspiracy theory.....

Why don't people accept what's happened and move on? If it was the opposite way around the same people would be baying for Ferrari blood.....

to answer your first question..yes it was...Don't think Stepney was a McL spy who infiltrated Ferrari..or was put a gun to his head by McL in order to get the info...so yes..it was given voluntary by him !

..and like I said before..i don't think it's McL task to go..hey people at Ferrari one of your top employees is not trustable and is giving out info to everyone.....you guys should keep an eye on him..think that's ferrari's own task to do so no ?


so yes It's kinda hard to accept the way FIA dealed with this...

[DonJippo]

..and like I said before..i don't think it's McL task to go..hey people at Ferrari one of your top employees is not trustable and is giving out info to everyone.....you guys should keep an eye on him..

Actually it was, they were not the rightful owner of the data, instead they started to use that data without the permit of the rightful owner and that's their wrong doing.

[Tomi]

Maybe Ferrari have there reasons to thank Fernando the way they did....Montezemelo almost congratulated him more than his own drivers !

or could it have been because Alonso was the only one in the McLaren camp who did his job properly in Brazil and did not crack under pressure, also he showed true sportmanship after the event congatulating the winners in a fair way.

[Daniel]

to answer your first question..yes it was...Don't think Stepney was a McL spy who infiltrated Ferrari..or was put a gun to his head by McL in order to get the info...so yes..it was given voluntary by him !

..and like I said before..i don't think it's McL task to go..hey people at Ferrari one of your top employees is not trustable and is giving out info to everyone.....you guys should keep an eye on him..think that's ferrari's own task to do so no ?


so yes It's kinda hard to accept the way FIA dealed with this...
So if you dog leaves your front door open and I steal all your stuff it's OK because your dog let me in? Cool!

Please PM me your address and I'll be there in the morning with a van :)

[ioan]

I feel the whole mclaren data stealing fiasco is an inside job of Ferrari..
who well planned and executed this saga obviously expecting the mclaren (thier closest championship contenders) to be thrown out of this years WC & possible banning them of racing for the next years.

in the absense of Michael schum'r, Ferrari needed some time , possibly few years to bring in Kimi/massa as wdc winners for ferrari. they were scared that mclaren have brought up a goodcar this year and WC Alonso got hired & this is a serious threat for thier ferrari wc ambitions, nevertheless Alonso will improve over the next years and mclaren may just become too hard to catch up.

so they broght in a well planned strategy of 'befriending' some tech guys in mclaren, using thier 'unwanted' english engineer stepney, exchanged some material to bring mclaren to its knees.. there were no evidence that the mclaren cars were using the ferrari stuffs, otherwise thier drivers also would have thrown out of the champ'p for sure.

I believe the FIA,other teams & F1 fans fell head over heals for the 'ferrari strategy' which broght lots lots of sympathies to them also..
..welldone Montzemello..welldone Todt.


Goodluck to Ferrari for winning the constructors & drivers championships.. money well spent on plans like this.. we will see more from you!

:rolleyes: :s
I knew this will be posted sooner or later.

[TL]

Actually it was, they were not the rightful owner of the data, instead they started to use that data without the permit of the rightful owner and that's their wrong doing.

how could McL know all this in first place ? and rightfull owner ? What's the meaning of that ? again...it was given to them....It was NOT stolen or they found it somewhere or whatever..and don't think it was written anywhere these documents where not available to be shared with others anyway or ? Oh ya..it said TOP SECRET in big letters..But that sounds to James Bond-ish to me !

Maybe he also shared the data with other teams ?....have they ever investigated that ? or was it just to target McL ?

[ioan]

how could McL know all this in first place ? and rightfull owner ? What's the meaning of that ? again...it was given to them....It was NOT stolen or they found it somewhere or whatever..and don't think it was written anywhere these documents where not available to be shared with others anyway or ? Oh ya..it said TOP SECRET in big letters..But that sounds to James Bond-ish to me !

This is what happens when you watch to much James Bond! :rolleyes:

[TL]

So if you dog leaves your front door open and I steal all your stuff it's OK because your dog let me in? Cool!

Please PM me your address and I'll be there in the morning with a van :)

not really your best comparison there Daniel..sorry ! I would rather look at it like tis (dog (Ferrari) leaves the door open..one of the habitants of the house (Stepney) freely gives away some of the furnitures...is that called stealing ? Don't think so !

PS: a little trailer will do.. ;)

[Daniel]

how could McL know all this in first place ? and rightfull owner ? What's the meaning of that ? again...it was given to them....It was NOT stolen or they found it somewhere or whatever..and don't think it was written anywhere these documents where not available to be shared with others anyway or ? Oh ya..it said TOP SECRET in big letters..But that sounds to James Bond-ish to me !

Maybe he also shared the data with other teams ?....have they ever investigated that ? or was it just to target McL ?
Your post is all about maybe. Lets talk about the facts. Did you read the FIA judgement I posted yesterday or did you ignore it?

I agree with Ioan. You've been watching too much James Bond.

[Daniel]

not really your best comparison there Daniel..sorry ! I would rather look at it like tis (dog (Ferrari) leaves the door open..one of the habitants of the house (Stepney) freely gives away some of the furnitures...is that called stealing ? Don't think so !

PS: a little trailer will do.. ;)
If I stole some of my g/f's stuff and gave it to someone else and they knew it wasn't mine (McLaren were clearly aware it was Ferrari data) then the receiver of the goods would also be guilty.

[TL]

If I stole some of my g/f's stuff and gave it to someone else and they knew it wasn't mine (McLaren were clearly aware it was Ferrari data) then the receiver of the goods would also be guilty.


well..maybe you said it right there..ALSO guilty..so why only punish McL ?

[Daniel]

well..maybe you said it right there..ALSO guilty..so why only punish McL ?
Yes but my girlfriend didn't have any part in it and the same with Ferrari. Stepney is going to be prosecuted don't you worry.

[TL]

Yes but my girlfriend didn't have any part in it and the same with Ferrari. Stepney is going to be prosecuted don't you worry.

well than again..why punish the whole McL team while there was no hard evidence the whole team knew what was goin on (yes that's in the PDF you showed me ) and when it comes to ferrari just the one involved ?

[ioan]

well than again..why punish the whole McL team while there was no hard evidence the whole team knew what was goin on (yes that's in the PDF you showed me ) and when it comes to ferrari just the one involved ?

:rolleyes:

Daniel, you're a very patient person. ;)

[Daniel]

well than again..why punish the whole McL team while there was no hard evidence the whole team knew what was goin on (yes that's in the PDF you showed me ) and when it comes to ferrari just the one involved ?
Well Pedro and Fernando were also both involved and this is documented. So the TEAM was involved. There is no proof at all that anyone other than Stepney was involved in it on the Ferrari side. If you have no proof then why keep on going on about it? :confused:

[Daniel]

:rolleyes:

Daniel, you're a very patient person. ;)
You're the first person to ever say that about me ;)

[ioan]

You're the first person to ever say that about me ;)

Well there's always a first time. ;)

[TL]

Well Pedro and Fernando were also both involved and this is documented. So the TEAM was involved. There is no proof at all that anyone other than Stepney was involved in it on the Ferrari side. If you have no proof then why keep on going on about it? :confused:

there's no proof on either side more people where involved...so my question stays..Why only punish one team..or better..why punish them anyway when there's no hard evidence !

[TL]

:rolleyes:

Daniel, you're a very patient person. ;)

thought this discussion was between me and Daniel....so if it bothers you..don't read it !

[Daniel]

there's no proof on either side more people where involved...so my question stays..Why only punish one team..or better..why punish them anyway when there's no hard evidence !
There was hard evidence of McLaren being involved other than just one person. There is no evidence of Ferrari being involved other than with regards to Stepney.

I will keep on repeating this.

[ioan]

thought this discussion was between me and Daniel....so if it bothers you..don't read it !

If this discussion is only between you and Daniel than take it to PM's, if not prepare to support the heat. :p :

I feel the whole mclaren data stealing fiasco is an inside job of Ferrari..
who well planned and executed this saga obviously expecting the mclaren (thier closest championship contenders) to be thrown out of this years WC & possible banning them of racing for the next years.

Then why didn't they try this in 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2005 & 2006?

[Daniel]

Then why didn't they try this in 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2005 & 2006?
:idea: Perhaps because they've never actually framed another team? :D

[DonJippo]

how could McL know all this in first place ? and rightfull owner ? What's the meaning of that ? again...it was given to them....It was NOT stolen or they found it somewhere or whatever..and don't think it was written anywhere these documents where not available to be shared with others anyway or ?

All it had to say was "Ferrari"...obviously a term "company confidential" has no meaning for you or you simply are not familiar with it?

[edv]

None of you are thinking BIG enough!

The top-level conspiracy was hatched by Honda.

Their plan was for NS & MC to exchange data, get caught, have both the Macs AND the Ferraris disqualified for 2 years, then build a WCC winning car for 2008 based on copies of ALL of the exchanged data.

Unfortunatley for Honda, they failed to anticipate the sympathy of FIA to Ferrari.

[Daniel]

None of you are thinking BIG enough!

The top-level conspiracy was hatched by Honda.

Their plan was for NS & MC to exchange data, get caught, have both the Macs AND the Ferraris disqualified for 2 years, then build a WCC winning car for 2008 based on copies of ALL of the exchanged data.

Unfortunatley for Honda, they failed to anticipate the sympathy of FIA to Ferrari.
:rotflmao: Nice one ;)

[OTA]

Why didn't they punish Couglan(don't know if it's the right spelling) Pedro and FA. Maybe because they put some cash in Max's pockets or may be, just may be, because there are things we don't know, such as the big liar(RD) knowledge of the whole affair.
Oh I forgot that RD has already said he is the culpit of integrity and had he ever knew about any Ferrari info he would come forward to the Maranello police. Indeed, he has a policy in which no employee of Mac is allowed to even look at a Ferrari.

Cheers
David

[Daniel]

Why didn't they punish Couglan(don't know if it's the right spelling) Pedro and FA. Maybe because they put some cash in Max's pockets or may be, just may be, because there are things we don't know, such as the big liar(RD) knowledge of the whole affair.
Oh I forgot that RD has already said he is the culpit of integrity and had he ever knew about any Ferrari info he would come forward to the Maranello police. Indeed, he has a policy in which no employee of Mac is allowed to even look at a Ferrari.

Cheers
David
Pedro and FA were offered immunity. AFAIK Coughlan is still facing legal action in Italy?

[BDunnell]

There was hard evidence of McLaren being involved other than just one person. There is no evidence of Ferrari being involved other than with regards to Stepney.

I will keep on repeating this.

And I will keep on repeating that there is no evidence that Ron Dennis deliberately lied when he made his initial statement to the effect that he knew nothing about what had gone on.

[Daniel]

And I will keep on repeating that there is no evidence that Ron Dennis deliberately lied when he made his initial statement to the effect that he knew nothing about what had gone on.
I don't disagree with that at all. There is no proof that Ron has lied in regards to Stepneygate :) But that's not really relevant as others knew about it and

A) Used the data
B) Didn't come forward originally

It was probably the lack of evidence to prove that the order to "cheat" came from the top that resulted in the "lighter" penalty of the £100m fine.

[BDunnell]

I don't disagree with that at all. There is no proof that Ron has lied in regards to Stepneygate :) But that's not really relevant as others knew about it and

A) Used the data
B) Didn't come forward originally

It was probably the lack of evidence to prove that the order to "cheat" came from the top that resulted in the "lighter" penalty of the £100m fine.

It is relevant when certain people tiresomely bang on about how you can't believe a word Ron Dennis says.

[Daniel]

It is relevant when certain people tiresomely bang on about how you can't believe a word Ron Dennis says.
Perhaps people see there being other evidence about him lying? I personally don't trust him just because that's the way he seems to come across to me but that's not proof. I think he's perhaps guilty of not telling the complete truth but I don't know if I'd say he out and out lies.

[BDunnell]

Perhaps people see there being other evidence about him lying? I personally don't trust him just because that's the way he seems to come across to me but that's not proof. I think he's perhaps guilty of not telling the complete truth but I don't know if I'd say he out and out lies.

I wasn't referring to you, I should add.

[Daniel]

I wasn't referring to you, I should add.
Not a problem. Didn't think you did ;) Civilised debate on the F1 forum. Scary.

[wmcot]

..and like I said before..i don't think it's McL task to go..hey people at Ferrari one of your top employees is not trustable and is giving out info to everyone.....you guys should keep an eye on him..

You're right, McLaren wouldn't do that. That would be called INTEGRITY!

[Tazio]

I feel the whole mclaren data stealing fiasco is an inside job of Ferrari..
who well planned and executed this saga obviously expecting the mclaren (thier closest championship contenders) to be thrown out of this years WC & possible banning them of racing for the next years.

in the absense of Michael schum'r, Ferrari needed some time , possibly few years to bring in Kimi/massa as wdc winners for ferrari. they were scared that mclaren have brought up a goodcar this year and WC Alonso got hired & this is a serious threat for thier ferrari wc ambitions, nevertheless Alonso will improve over the next years and mclaren may just become too hard to catch up.

so they broght in a well planned strategy of 'befriending' some tech guys in mclaren, using thier 'unwanted' english engineer stepney, exchanged some material to bring mclaren to its knees.. there were no evidence that the mclaren cars were using the ferrari stuffs, otherwise thier drivers also would have thrown out of the champ'p for sure.

I believe the FIA,other teams & F1 fans fell head over heals for the 'ferrari strategy' which broght lots lots of sympathies to them also..
..welldone Montzemello..welldone Todt.


Goodluck to Ferrari for winning the constructors & drivers championships.. money well spent on plans like this.. we will see more from you!
Have you ever been told you have a fertile imagination?

If your claim is true it will come to light when a legitimate court concludes that their being no other logical explanation it is the only possible conclusion.
My dear Watson!

[TL]

You're right, McLaren wouldn't do that. That would be called INTEGRITY!

you think other teams would do in the same situation ?

[Crypt]

I feel the whole mclaren data stealing fiasco is an inside job of Ferrari..
who well planned and executed this saga obviously expecting the mclaren (thier closest championship contenders) to be thrown out of this years WC & possible banning them of racing for the next years.

in the absense of Michael schum'r, Ferrari needed some time , possibly few years to bring in Kimi/massa as wdc winners for ferrari. they were scared that mclaren have brought up a goodcar this year and WC Alonso got hired & this is a serious threat for thier ferrari wc ambitions, nevertheless Alonso will improve over the next years and mclaren may just become too hard to catch up.

so they broght in a well planned strategy of 'befriending' some tech guys in mclaren, using thier 'unwanted' english engineer stepney, exchanged some material to bring mclaren to its knees.. there were no evidence that the mclaren cars were using the ferrari stuffs, otherwise thier drivers also would have thrown out of the champ'p for sure.

I believe the FIA,other teams & F1 fans fell head over heals for the 'ferrari strategy' which broght lots lots of sympathies to them also..
..welldone Montzemello..welldone Todt.


Goodluck to Ferrari for winning the constructors & drivers championships.. money well spent on plans like this.. we will see more from you!

It's actually that George W. Bush hates McLaren.

[mstillhere]

This whole saga started with a Ferrari employee handing the info over to a McLaren employee, ( not McLaren walking in and stealing it)

I totally agree with you. Actually, why don't you buy a stolen car? Like a Ferrari or better yet a nice McLAren. According to your way of thinking, nothing should happen to you, rigth? It's not like you stole the car. Go ahead, I am sure the judge will fully understand, that.
PS I am willing to move where you live. It sounds like it's paradise :)
PPSS This is getting old. This topic was discussed a billion times on a gazzillion pages a billion years ago. If you are new, please go to archives. There is so much material that it will keep uou busy for a couple of centuries.
(Man!!!! Talking about being in denial for ever) They guy screwed up! End of the story>

[wmcot]

you think other teams would do in the same situation ?

I don't know, it would have to happen to them first and then we could make a judgement. Even if we assume that all teams would all make the wrong choice and keep (and use) the information doesn't make it right!

[passmeatissue]

Without Fernando it would never have amounted to anything. Notice how nice di Montezemolo is being about Fernando? So just because he was pumping Stepney for confidential Ferrari data doesn't mean he's a spy or anything, then!

It means the engineering value of the data to a top team was trivial, as Pedro de la Rosa said. Its real value was political, and Alonso was their inside man to get that rolling.

[wmcot]

Without Fernando it would never have amounted to anything. Notice how nice di Montezemolo is being about Fernando? So just because he was pumping Stepney for confidential Ferrari data doesn't mean he's a spy or anything, then!

It means the engineering value of the data to a top team was trivial, as Pedro de la Rosa said. Its real value was political, and Alonso was their inside man to get that rolling.

I think the World Motorsport Council would have a different opinion than yours.

[Garry Walker]

embarrassing to read such filth

[wmcot]

It's actually that George W. Bush hates McLaren.


He doesn't hate McLaren, he just can't pronounce it! ;)

[passmeatissue]

I think the World Motorsport Council would have a different opinion than yours.
Yes they would, but having been herded like sheep by Max and the Ferrari lobby. Max has just admitted that it was all too late to influence the 2007 car, it's the 2008 car that is the one that would have benefitted (http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews/2007/10/7014.html). He also said that if McLaren had come clean at the first hearing the punishment would not have been so severe. So the penalties were not for any real advantage or cheating, it was a political storm whipped up by Max and Ferrari. And it seems certain that Fernando restarted it by giving his emails to Bernie. Alonso was in the team but a traitor, Ferrari's answer to Stepney.

Add in for example Bridgestones' anti-McLaren choice of tyres in Brazil ("unraceable" according to Toyota, and probably decisive for the outcome) and the stewards' timid ducking and diving for excuses not to penalise cars ahead of Hamilton, and - to come back to the thread - Ron is the last one who owes an apology.

[Crypt]

He doesn't hate McLaren, he just can't pronounce it! ;)


Right right, "Muh-Klern"

[wmcot]

Add in for example Bridgestones' anti-McLaren choice of tyres in Brazil ("unraceable" according to Toyota, and probably decisive for the outcome)

Would those be the same tires that Lewis had an extra set to practice with? And besides, Toyota is hardly considered a benchmark when it comes to high-performing teams! :)

[mstillhere]

well than again..why punish the whole McL team

Because that's the rule. You did not know that?

[Valve Bounce]

I feel the whole mclaren data stealing fiasco is an inside job of Ferrari..
who well planned and executed this saga obviously expecting the mclaren (thier closest championship contenders) to be thrown out of this years WC & possible banning them of racing for the next years.



It was Elvis!!

[Roamy]

hey RoBong
All mac had to do is report it when it happened - they did not hence 100 mil down the tube.

[Tazio]

hey RoBong
!

[Roamy]

all in humor Tazio

[JovialJooles]

...

Ferrari showed amazing foresight as well. They put this plan into motion before the season even started. They must have had a lot of faith that the MP4-22 wouldn't be another winless MP4-21. Even after they thrashed the McLarens by a second a lap in Australia they still felt the need to continue with this cunningly evil plan.

The only reason they thrashed everyone by a second a lap was because they cheated. The floor was deemed to be outside of the rules and had to be removed.

Funny that it was never deemed illegal...

Funny that the team were allowed to keep the win and the points...

Reminds me of the barge board saga of '99. That wasn't deemed illegal either...

[Tazio]

all in humor Tazio I wouln't snitch, even if you had posted something inapropriate.
(which I havn't seen in eight-hundred, and some odd posts).
If I could figure out how to use more than one of these icons per post
I wouldn't be the most misunderstood member in show bussiness.

[ArrowsFA1]

Interesting to see Max's views (http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews/2007/10/7014.html) on the long term effects of Stepneygate:

"I am convinced that the whole affair did not harm Formula One. It just sharpened its image. The whole matter did damage both teams but some years down the line it will be forgotten."
I wonder if the passing of time will prove him right :dozey:

[wmcot]

Funny that it was never deemed illegal...



The floor wasn't illegal - it passed all the tests. The tests were changed in order to make Ferrari change the floor.

This has already been pointed out in dozens of posts, but some people will never understand how rules and laws change.

Under the Law of Moses, it was illegal to take more than a certain number of steps on the sabbath day! Seems that rule has been changed!

[ArrowsFA1]

The floor wasn't illegal - it passed all the tests. The tests were changed in order to make Ferrari change the floor.
Mmmmm :dozey: The test was changed to prevent all the teams (not just Ferrari) using the kind of floor Ferrari had developed and used to win the Australian GP. Their solution was designed to get around the existing rule and gain an advantage that rule was designed to prevent.

When concerns over the legality of the floor were raised within Ferrari the response was (http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19721.html) "we will go with the system as it is and take any advantage up to the time any team makes noises to the FIA, at the minimum we will have at least 1 race under our belts before any action can be taken."

The floor was legal in Australia because the existing rule could not detect its' intention. In other words, a clever piece of engineering.

[wmcot]

Mmmmm :dozey: The test was changed to prevent all the teams (not just Ferrari) using the kind of floor Ferrari had developed and used to win the Australian GP. Their solution was designed to get around the existing rule and gain an advantage that rule was designed to prevent.

When concerns over the legality of the floor were raised within Ferrari the response was (http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19721.html) "we will go with the system as it is and take any advantage up to the time any team makes noises to the FIA, at the minimum we will have at least 1 race under our belts before any action can be taken."

The floor was legal in Australia because the existing rule could not detect its' intention. In other words, a clever piece of engineering.

OK, you phrased it better than I did, but the point is that it was legal in Australia as would any other teams' floor be if they were using a similar design.

[ArrowsFA1]

...the point is that it was legal in Australia as would any other teams' floor be if they were using a similar design.
True :up: and the result is in the history books :)

[TL]

Because that's the rule. You did not know that?

well I keep wondering why Ferrari (as a team) got away in all this with no punishment at all..although there was also one of there employees involved....Btw..was there ever an investigation to check if no other people at Ferrari where helping Stepney to obtain the info and get it out the factory undetected ?

[pino]

True :up: and the result is in the history books :)

Then why there's someone who still complain about it ? :s

[Daniel]

Then why there's someone who still complain about it ? :s
That and why do people think Ferrari should be punished for the actions of someone who was doing something that was detrimental to the Ferrari effort. :rolleyes:

[TL]

That and why do people think Ferrari should be punished for the actions of someone who was doing something that was detrimental to the Ferrari effort. :rolleyes:

well it turned out what Coughlan..Alonso and De La Rosa where doin was also pretty detrimental for there own Mclaren team not ?

[ioan]

well it turned out what Coughlan..Alonso and De La Rosa where doin was also pretty detrimental for there own Mclaren team not ?

Not before they were caught cheating. :rolleyes:

[TL]

Not before they were caught cheating. :rolleyes:

Not my point Ion..just like with with stepney, them 3 should have been taken to court..as never was proven more people where invloved..just like it never was proven more people where involved at ferrari...

so again I keep looking for an answer to my question..why punish McL and not Ferrari as a team in all this ? and yes ok you can go..McLaren should have told FIA when they found out......When they found out ?

Ferrari found out first no ? When this copy shop guy got the whole thing rolling...Ferrari lodged a complaint..and only than the McLaren staff got aware of what was goin on...

[THE_LIBERATOR]

It was Elvis!!

+1 :up:

[TL]

anyone ever read this pretty recent article on the BBC site ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/low/motorsport/formula_one/7006365.stm

anyone ever read this pretty recent article on the BBC site ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/low/motorsport/formula_one/7006365.stm

A quote from the above....

"Yes, De la Rosa said, he had asked Coughlan about the Ferrari's weight distribution, and he knew the information was coming from Ferrari performance director Nigel Stepney.

But he absolutely did not know about the Ferrari documents. He asked Coughlan because they were friends, dating back to the days when De la Rosa drove for Arrows and Coughlan was their designer."

Which, sorry to break it to you, is illegal.

If I had contacted any of my former colleagues at a different team to give them info on my current team, then I would have been in breach of my contract and they, having requested the info, would also be party to industrial espionage and therefore also in breach of the law.

De La Rosa's admission that he knew the info was coming from Stepney is the nail in the coffin.

You can squeal about an injustice all you like, but that admission is damning.

[TL]

If I had contacted any of my former colleagues at a different team to give them info on my current team, then I would have been in breach of my contract and they, having requested the info, would also be party to industrial espionage and therefore also in breach of the law.

De La Rosa's admission that he knew the info was coming from Stepney is the nail in the coffin.

You can squeal about an injustice all you like, but that admission is damning.

You have a point there..But u said it yourself..YOU would be in breach of your contract and not the team as a whole...

That's what this article was all about...Just like what happened to the toyota people..where the people involved got punished..and not Toyota as a team...FIA not even intervened back than !

[wmcot]

You have a point there..But u said it yourself..YOU would be in breach of your contract and not the team as a whole...

That's what this article was all about...Just like what happened to the toyota people..where the people involved got punished..and not Toyota as a team...FIA not even intervened back than !

But if the team benefits from the illegally obtained information, then the team is in violation and needs to be punished. McLaren learned a lot from running simulations using Ferrari's data, knowing their precise pitstop times, etc. Therefore, the team should be punished for using the illegal information even if some of the team members didn't know where it came from.

As for your earlier post, Stepney and Coughlan have had legal charges pressed against them. There could possibly be others who are taken to court depending on the information that comes out in court from these two trials.

[tinchote]

You have a point there..But u said it yourself..YOU would be in breach of your contract and not the team as a whole...

That's what this article was all about...Just like what happened to the toyota people..where the people involved got punished..and not Toyota as a team...FIA not even intervened back than !

So, your view is that if a company makes damage to you, only the concrete people who did or decided the damage is to blame, and not the company.

Trying to distinguish the "actions from the employees" from the "actions from the company" is a futile exercise. Every time every company does something you could argue that it was not the company but the employees: it doesn't make any sense.

[BDunnell]

So, your view is that if a company makes damage to you, only the concrete people who did or decided the damage is to blame, and not the company.

Trying to distinguish the "actions from the employees" from the "actions from the company" is a futile exercise. Every time every company does something you could argue that it was not the company but the employees: it doesn't make any sense.

A lot of the time, I think this is correct, unless there is some sort of 'institutionalised' failing within the company itself. In many cases that one hears about, problems are down to disgruntled individuals rather than anything more widespread. Of course there are circumstances in which the management needs to take responsibility, but I would contend that this isn't in every case. Collective responsibility can only go so far before it becomes more symbolic than actually necessary.

[Malbec]

Trying to distinguish the "actions from the employees" from the "actions from the company" is a futile exercise. Every time every company does something you could argue that it was not the company but the employees: it doesn't make any sense.

It isn't a futile exercise, in industrial espionage cases it makes all the difference.

For the company not to get charged with espionage it needs to prove that the employee operated on their own against established company culture and procedures and when found out that the employee was sanctioned appropriately.

The problem with F1 is that things are very murky. Someone in the posts above said that it would not be acceptable for him to obtain information from other companies which is totally correct, however F1 is very incestuous and you do get a lot of information transfer informally at the British based teams as people from different teams go to the pub together (not as unlikely as it sounds with the close proximity of the teams and the constant staff movements between them).

How do you ensure information doesn't get transferred in such informal environments?

[TL]

So, your view is that if a company makes damage to you, only the concrete people who did or decided the damage is to blame, and not the company.

Yep correct...Just the people involved should be to blame.......if they acted on there own that is.....and there's no 100% proof more people within that same company where involved..like it was in this case !

[JovialJooles]

Mmmmm :dozey: The test was changed to prevent all the teams (not just Ferrari) using the kind of floor Ferrari had developed and used to win the Australian GP. Their solution was designed to get around the existing rule and gain an advantage that rule was designed to prevent.

When concerns over the legality of the floor were raised within Ferrari the response was (http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19721.html) "we will go with the system as it is and take any advantage up to the time any team makes noises to the FIA, at the minimum we will have at least 1 race under our belts before any action can be taken."

The floor was legal in Australia because the existing rule could not detect its' intention. In other words, a clever piece of engineering.

I love the English language...

The floor was engineered so that it would pass the test without detection.

However, the test was designed to see if a team had a moveable floor.

Moveable floors are not permitted in F1, ergo, Ferrari cheeted. Or to put it another way, Ferrari deliberately deceived the FIA in order to gain an unfair competitive advantage. Of course, in the FIA's eyes, this did not bring the sport into disrepute.

[wmcot]

Moveable floors are not permitted in F1, ergo, Ferrari cheeted. Or to put it another way, Ferrari deliberately deceived the FIA in order to gain an unfair competitive advantage. Of course, in the FIA's eyes, this did not bring the sport into disrepute.

How could they bring the sport into disrepute when their design met all the test criteria as defined by the sport's governing body?

Designers would have to have a crystal ball and design the cars so they would comply with rules that have not been written yet!

[JovialJooles]

Hardly. The rule was written in black and white.

Ferrari designed a car to pass the test, but the car did not comply with the rules. The problem was that the test was not up to the job. It is not the designers who need the crystal balls, but the people who design the test. They need to be able to work out how people are going to cheet.

Let's take an example. If metal bats are banned from cricket and the umpire checks the bat to see it is made of wood, what happens if you turn up with a metal bat with a wood veneer? It appears to be made of wood, and it may fool the umpire. Does that make the metal bat legal? Of course not, it just means you are clever in your cheeting.

The test was designed to check whether the floor moves, as a moveable floor is illegal. The test is restricted in its capability as it is a static test rather than a test on a vehicle at racing speed.

Ferrari designed their floor to flex. Therefore it is illegal. Simple.

The question of bringing the sport into disrepute revolves around the fact they designed the floor specifically to pass the test and go undetected.

My issue is not with Ferrari. If McLaren, Williams, Honda... had designed the floor it would be illegal.

My issue is that the FIA are not consistent with the rules and are certainly not consistent with the application of those rules. Plus the rules are written in such a way as to allow room for interpretation. Given that Max is a lawyer and they employ some very clever lawyers at the FIA, it would not be that difficult to make the rules water tight. The FIA are happy with the rules as they are written as it allows them room for manoeuvre. Such as the barge board incident and the flexible floor.

This is not good for the sport.

Anyway, I've made my point. If you don't agree, fine, I don't have a problem with that.

[SteveA]

people from different teams go to the pub together

Its amusing to think that changes would be made to an F1 car as a result of some "beer talk" the night before.

I wonder how many chavs have picked up some tips and can now go round corners much faster due to the tuned mass damper they fitted to their Corsa last week ;)

[ArrowsFA1]

Its amusing to think that changes would be made to an F1 car as a result of some "beer talk" the night before.
Well, apparently back in 1979 the Ligier team, who had dominated the first two races of the season, lost the fag packet on which was written the secret to their success :eek: Perhaps Ferrari had found it because they had two consectutive 1-2's in the next races :p :

[SGWilko]

:rolleyes: :s
I knew this will be posted sooner or later.

You should have said something then - before it was posted..... :p :

[ArrowsFA1]

Ferrari designed a car to pass the test...
I'm reminded of Ross Brawn's words (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/54038) about the mass damper issue:

"It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure the car is legal, not the FIA's. It's our job to make sure the car is legal at all times."

"The historical pattern is that the FIA don't really know a system is on a car and particularly systems inside the nose. It's not for the FIA to go through every car with a fine toothcomb. It is the competitor's responsibility to make sure the car is legal at all times."

"You could race for a season with a system that the FIA doesn't know is on your car. You take a risk that if you don't inform them, and if someone challenges it and the FIA deems it illegal, then you have a problem."

[Garry Walker]

Hardly. The rule was written in black and white.

Ferrari designed a car to pass the test, but the car did not comply with the rules. The problem was that the test was not up to the job. It is not the designers who need the crystal balls, but the people who design the test. They need to be able to work out how people are going to cheet.

Let's take an example. If metal bats are banned from cricket and the umpire checks the bat to see it is made of wood, what happens if you turn up with a metal bat with a wood veneer? It appears to be made of wood, and it may fool the umpire. Does that make the metal bat legal? Of course not, it just means you are clever in your cheeting.

The test was designed to check whether the floor moves, as a moveable floor is illegal. The test is restricted in its capability as it is a static test rather than a test on a vehicle at racing speed.

Ferrari designed their floor to flex. Therefore it is illegal. Simple.

The question of bringing the sport into disrepute revolves around the fact they designed the floor specifically to pass the test and go undetected.

My issue is not with Ferrari. If McLaren, Williams, Honda... had designed the floor it would be illegal.

BS. The problem is that all of the floors showed some flexing and most teams had to alter their floor designs after Melbourne. The oh so honest McLaren included. They were all exploiting a loohope in the rules and it wasnt illegal. Ferrari was the most clever one in interpreting the rules. Your long-winded post will not change it in any way, nor will it change the fact that Golden Boy didnt win.


it would not be that difficult to make the rules water tight. There goes your credibility. Crazy talk.
It is always possible to exploit loopholes in the laws and rules. You have 5-6 people writing them and thousands of people trying to exploit them. Your thought is laughable.



Why is this crazy topic still going?

[BDunnell]

Why is this crazy topic still going?

One could say the same of certain others.

[Garry Walker]

One could say the same of certain others.

No other thread is built on lies, except of course the "the axis of max"

[BDunnell]

There is, as I've pointed out before, a difference between a lie and something that isn't correct.

I don't believe the premise of this thread, as I think it's as ridiculous as all the other conspiracy theories from the other 'side', but I would rather read it than a thread that serves no other purpose than to insult someone in a childish and frankly deeply unpleasant manner any day.

[Garry Walker]

There is, as I've pointed out before, a difference between a lie and something that isn't correct.

I don't believe the premise of this thread, as I think it's as ridiculous as all the other conspiracy theories from the other 'side', but I would rather read it than a thread that serves no other purpose than to insult someone in a childish and frankly deeply unpleasant manner any day.

So insulting Ferrari and saying they engineered all this spy-affair, and it is they who are to blame (yet not offering any proof), is not insulting and childish?

I think my words for Jackie (aka stupid) were actually NICER than what rohanweb said about Ferrari in this thread. Remember, he accused Ferrari of pretty serious things, whereas I just told Jackie to shut up with his constant Ferrari and FIA drivel. But for some people insults and accusations are okay as long as they concern Ferrari. Same old, same old.

[BDunnell]

So insulting Ferrari and saying they engineered all this spy-affair, and it is they who are to blame (yet not offering any proof), is not insulting and childish?

I think my words for Jackie (aka stupid) were actually NICER than what rohanweb said about Ferrari in this thread. Remember, he accused Ferrari of pretty serious things, whereas I just told Jackie to shut up with his constant Ferrari and FIA drivel. But for some people insults and accusations are okay as long as they concern Ferrari. Same old, same old.

Not at all, as far as I'm concerned. I have no desire to see people bashing Ferrari or any other team. But there is a big difference in the tone and language.

[wmcot]

Hardly. The rule was written in black and white.

Ferrari designed a car to pass the test, but the car did not comply with the rules. The problem was that the test was not up to the job. It is not the designers who need the crystal balls, but the people who design the test. They need to be able to work out how people are going to cheet.

Let's take an example. If metal bats are banned from cricket and the umpire checks the bat to see it is made of wood, what happens if you turn up with a metal bat with a wood veneer? It appears to be made of wood, and it may fool the umpire. Does that make the metal bat legal? Of course not, it just means you are clever in your cheeting.

The test was designed to check whether the floor moves, as a moveable floor is illegal. The test is restricted in its capability as it is a static test rather than a test on a vehicle at racing speed.

Ferrari designed their floor to flex. Therefore it is illegal. Simple.

The question of bringing the sport into disrepute revolves around the fact they designed the floor specifically to pass the test and go undetected.

My issue is not with Ferrari. If McLaren, Williams, Honda... had designed the floor it would be illegal.

My issue is that the FIA are not consistent with the rules and are certainly not consistent with the application of those rules. Plus the rules are written in such a way as to allow room for interpretation. Given that Max is a lawyer and they employ some very clever lawyers at the FIA, it would not be that difficult to make the rules water tight. The FIA are happy with the rules as they are written as it allows them room for manoeuvre. Such as the barge board incident and the flexible floor.

This is not good for the sport.

Anyway, I've made my point. If you don't agree, fine, I don't have a problem with that.

I agree with you as far as the inconsistency of the punishments by the FIA.

I guess we'll have to disagree about the definition of legality as it pertains to the Ferrari floor and other devices (mass dampers, etc.) A rule can be black and white stating that there shall be no movement or flexing of certain parts, but from a practical point, nothing is 100% rigid. The tests designed by the FIA are to determine if the floor is "rigid enough." The definition of what is "rigid enough" changed between Australia and Malaysia. This brings up the contradiction of whether legality is determined by the prescribed tests or the absolute (and impossible, in this case) way the rules are written.

[passmeatissue]

Well I took the initial post on this thread as something written with a smile :) . Surely?

As to the floor, to me the load/deflection tests in 3.17 are tests of Bodywork Flexibility, which is the title of that section, i.e. about bending. They are not tests of the rules in 3.15, which is titled Aerodynamic Influence. That says "any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:
- Must be RIGIDLY secured to the entirely sprung part of the car
- Must remain IMMOBILE in relation to the sprung part of the car." which is about how the parts are mounted. 3.17.6 which refers back to 3.15 was only added after Melbourn, to "clarify" the application of the test.

I have never been able to see how spring mounting of the floor could be thought to have met the requirments of 3.15 to be "rigidly secured" and "immobile", irrespective of the flexibility tests.

Clause 2.14 says the regulations must be met "in their entirety at all times during the event". So 3.17 is not an alternative to complying with 3.15, and also the rigidly secured/immobile presumably applies while the car is at speed on the track.

[Hondo]

I agree with you as far as the inconsistency of the punishments by the FIA.

I guess we'll have to disagree about the definition of legality as it pertains to the Ferrari floor and other devices (mass dampers, etc.) A rule can be black and white stating that there shall be no movement or flexing of certain parts, but from a practical point, nothing is 100% rigid. The tests designed by the FIA are to determine if the floor is "rigid enough." The definition of what is "rigid enough" changed between Australia and Malaysia. This brings up the contradiction of whether legality is determined by the prescribed tests or the absolute (and impossible, in this case) way the rules are written.

If a man lies while taking a polygraph test and the machine does not register changes, does that mean the lie now becomes truth or does it mean the method of testing was insuffient to detect the lie?

[ioan]

If a man lies while taking a polygraph test and the machine does not register changes, does that mean the lie now becomes truth or does it mean the method of testing was insuffient to detect the lie?

Can you prove that he was lying, or you are just supposing it?

Anyway your comparison is nil given that the parts on F1 cars are there to be seen by the scrutineers not hidden away in anyone's brain.

[Malbec]

If a man lies while taking a polygraph test and the machine does not register changes, does that mean the lie now becomes truth or does it mean the method of testing was insuffient to detect the lie?

Polygraph tests are an unreliable method for detecting whether someone is lying. I don't think that was quite the point you were trying to make but it ought to be pointed out.

[wmcot]

If a man lies while taking a polygraph test and the machine does not register changes, does that mean the lie now becomes truth or does it mean the method of testing was insuffient to detect the lie?

It means (in this analogy) that the method of testing did not show that he lied and therefore the test cannot be used in a court of law! If they then administer sodium pentathol (sp?) and he confesses, the lie is proven because the test was changed!

Similarly, nobody is denying that the floor flexed, only that it was allowable until the test was changed.

[ioan]

It means (in this analogy) that the method of testing did not show that he lied and therefore the test cannot be used in a court of law! If they then administer sodium pentathol (sp?) and he confesses, the lie is proven because the test was changed!

Similarly, nobody is denying that the floor flexed, only that it was allowable until the test was changed.

:eek: Are you working for the CIA? ;)

[passmeatissue]

Similarly, nobody is denying that the floor flexed, only that it was allowable until the test was changed.

I don't think the problem is flexing, it's the mounting. The load/deflection test is about bending, but the requirement for the floor to be "rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car" and to "remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car." is something else - mounting.

The argument that rigidity cannot be absolute is philosophically correct but in practice the rules depend on practical measurement, and spring mounting is obviously not rigid. The purpose of spring mounting is to give mobility, so by spring mounting the floor the team clearly set out to circumvent the 3.15 rule.

Complying with 3.17 does not mean they comply with 3.15, at least not until after Australia. And 2.4 says they have to comply with both.

Any car with a spring-mounted floor should have been thrown out by the scrutineers.

[ioan]

I don't think the problem is flexing, it's the mounting. The load/deflection test is about bending, but the requirement for the floor to be "rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car" and to "remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car." is something else - mounting.

The argument that rigidity cannot be absolute is philosophically correct but in practice the rules depend on practical measurement, and spring mounting is obviously not rigid. The purpose of spring mounting is to give mobility, so by spring mounting the floor the team clearly set out to circumvent the 3.15 rule.

Complying with 3.17 does not mean they comply with 3.15, at least not until after Australia. And 2.4 says they have to comply with both.

Any car with a spring-mounted floor should have been thrown out by the scrutineers.

There are a few things that you are missing there:
1. The floor was rigidly fixed to the car at one end.
2. At a point close to it's free end there was the by now famous spring mounting.

So I do not see how is that the floor was not rigidly fixed to the body of the car when it clearly was.

Yes the floor was flexing but that happens to all metallic and composite material made parts.

Was the floor however within´the permitted flexing limits, yes it was.

But we already did discuss this at least a thousand times.

PS: Keep in mind that the way you understand the terms : moving, flexing, rigidly and so on it is not always what these denote in engineering. ;)

[passmeatissue]

But we already did discuss this at least a thousand times.

PS: Keep in mind that the way you understand the terms : moving, flexing, rigidly and so on it is not always what these denote in engineering. ;)

These words mean the same in legal English as in engineering so clear language like "immobile" and "rigidly fixed" is not at all ambiguous. The issue is not about tolerances. Fixed at one point and floating at another is obviously not "rigidly fixed", it's just fixed. That's while the FIA added "rigidly" to the reg, and even reinforced this by adding "not having any degree of freedom". This clause also applies to the wings, don't forget.

Sorry if you're fed up with this topic, but these regs are central to a lot of what happened in the season. Members have different interests at any one time and for me the way to deal with it is just not to post. I myself was responding to wmcott. But I would prefer you to keep going to help me understand how the decision was reached, though preferably without telling me I'm not an engineer :) .

[Bagwan]

The issue is not about tolerances. .

Tolerances are exactly what this issue is about .

The undertray had a test which determined flex , and all passed in Oz .
After Melbourne , the test tolerances were changed . It was no longer possible to utilize the sprung floor design to advantage , so a number of teams dropped the idea , and re-designed floors .

[ioan]

These words mean the same in legal English as in engineering so clear language like "immobile" and "rigidly fixed" is not at all ambiguous. The issue is not about tolerances. Fixed at one point and floating at another is obviously not "rigidly fixed", it's just fixed. That's while the FIA added "rigidly" to the reg, and even reinforced this by adding "not having any degree of freedom". This clause also applies to the wings, don't forget.

Sorry if you're fed up with this topic, but these regs are central to a lot of what happened in the season. Members have different interests at any one time and for me the way to deal with it is just not to post. I myself was responding to wmcott. But I would prefer you to keep going to help me understand how the decision was reached, though preferably without telling me I'm not an engineer :) .

If I take an iron tube and I weld it to a ship at one end it will be rigidly fixed to that ship ( a big one ;) ) although it is fixed only at one end.

The fact that our tube can still flex if subjected to a big enough load does not mean that it isn't rigidly fixed to the ship.

A movement can be by definition a translation, a rotation or both of them in the same time.

If two objects (bodies) are rigidly fixed to each other than all of the DOFs (degree of freedom) of any of these bodies in relation to the other are nil.

Because the floor of that Ferrari couldn't rotate nor translate in relation to the chassis (or body of the car as you wish) it means that it was rigidly fixed to it.

Keep in mind: flexing is not a movement.

[ioan]

Tolerances are exactly what this issue is about .

The undertray had a test which determined flex , and all passed in Oz .
After Melbourne , the test tolerances were changed . It was no longer possible to utilize the sprung floor design to advantage , so a number of teams dropped the idea , and re-designed floors .

Exactly.

[Bagwan]

If I take an iron tube and I weld it to a ship at one end it will be rigidly fixed to that ship ( a big one ;) ) although it is fixed only at one end.

The fact that our tube can still flex if subjected to a big enough load does not mean that it isn't rigidly fixed to the ship.

A movement can be by definition a translation, a rotation or both of them in the same time.

If two objects (bodies) are rigidly fixed to each other than all of the DOFs (degree of freedom) of any of these bodies in relation to the other are nil.

Because the floor of that Ferrari couldn't rotate nor translate in relation to the chassis (or body of the car as you wish) it means that it was rigidly fixed to it.

Keep in mind: flexing is not a movement.

But , what if the tube that was rigidly fixed to the ship was below the water line ?
Would that not be easily "translated" as a possible cause for the "rotation" of the ship to upside-down , and only be a "fixed object" once you put a cork in the tube ?
Mind you , the "degree of freedom" one gets from a sunken boat is not too "flexable" .

[passmeatissue]

Tolerances are exactly what this issue is about .

The undertray had a test which determined flex , and all passed in Oz .
After Melbourne , the test tolerances were changed . It was no longer possible to utilize the sprung floor design to advantage , so a number of teams dropped the idea , and re-designed floors .

Up to Melbourne, clause 3.15 (Aerodynamic Influence) was not related to 3.17 (Bodywork Flexibility). It was only afterwards that 3.17.6 was added. Before Melbourne there's nothing to suggest the force-deflection tests in 3.17 were tests of compliance with 3.15. According to 2.4 cars have to meet both requirements, not one or the other.

Interesting point ioan but the springs were there at the other end giving the game away saying "pssstt, this floor is designed to not to be immobile" :eek: .

[ioan]

Up to Melbourne, clause 3.15 (Aerodynamic Influence) was not related to 3.17 (Bodywork Flexibility). It was only afterwards that 3.17.6 was added. Before Melbourne there's nothing to suggest the force-deflection tests in 3.17 were tests of compliance with 3.15. According to 2.4 cars have to meet both requirements, not one or the other.

Interesting point ioan but the springs were there at the other end giving the game away saying "pssstt, this floor is designed to not to be immobile" :eek: .

The floor was not mobile. Never ever. :rolleyes:
Your "definition" of mobile has no value in mechanics. And honestly we aren't discussing belletristic here.

[airshifter]

The floor was not mobile. Never ever. :rolleyes:
Your "definition" of mobile has no value in mechanics. And honestly we aren't discussing belletristic here.

I'm a Ferrari/Kimi supporter, but I feel he has a very valid point on the mounting issues.

I don't know of anything mounted with springs that I would consider a rigid mount.

[wmcot]

I'm a Ferrari/Kimi supporter, but I feel he has a very valid point on the mounting issues.

I don't know of anything mounted with springs that I would consider a rigid mount.

Then again, one could argue the opposite logic and say that the springs were only there in the first place to limit the flexing to within regulations. A stronger spring would limit motion more than a weaker spring. Didn't the teams simply increase the spring tension to meet the new specs before Malaysia? Or did they all go to a rigid mount?

[wmcot]

Then again, the whole "flexible floor issue" is really only an issue on discussion forums. No formal complaint was ever filed by any team, steward, or anyone in an official capacity. There was only a "hypothetical question" from someone at McLaren (with illegally obtained info, but let's not get into that) that resulted in a decision being made to clarify the regulations in a manner which had not been thought of before. The team(s) using the floor modified their design without any complaint or appeal.

It seems to be pretty much a non-issue in the pitlane. It's only in speculation in forums that the floor issue is even being discussed any longer.

[passmeatissue]

The floor was not mobile. Never ever. :rolleyes:
Your "definition" of mobile has no value in mechanics. And honestly we aren't discussing belletristic here.

Well that's the answer then, and I have to accept it. The words in the tech regs only mean what they normally mean if it's OK for Ferrari. Otherwise, a spring mounting is in fact a rigid mounting and immobile is mobile, so it's a pass in scrutineering. I knew there had to be an explanation, and clearly the stewards saw it the same way. There would have been a terrible fuss otherwise. Not being sarcastic, BTW, that's the logical conclusion from this discussion and the answer to my question "how..".

For anyone else wondering ...belletristic - written and regarded for aesthetic value rather than content (I looked it up)

[ioan]

I'm a Ferrari/Kimi supporter, but I feel he has a very valid point on the mounting issues.

I don't know of anything mounted with springs that I would consider a rigid mount.

It was not mounted only on springs, from what I've read/seen.
It was rigidly fixed at one end and somewhere towards the free end there was this spring mechanism that limited it's flex.

[JovialJooles]

BS. The problem is that all of the floors showed some flexing and most teams had to alter their floor designs after Melbourne. The oh so honest McLaren included. They were all exploiting a loohope in the rules and it wasnt illegal. Ferrari was the most clever one in interpreting the rules. Your long-winded post will not change it in any way, nor will it change the fact that Golden Boy didnt win.


Gosh, you obviously get your kicks from being overly aggressive to people. :laugh:

For the record, up until the whole spying issue I have been a lifelong Ferrari fan. I have never really been a big McLaren fan, but I feel the way they have been treated by the FIA is poor to say the least. I don't think Ferrari have come out of this very well either. AND, I wish they would just shut up about it now.

I assume Golden Boy is Lewis Hamilton? It's his first season, he's got plenty of time... :s mokin:

[wmcot]

It was not mounted only on springs, from what I've read/seen.
It was rigidly fixed at one end and somewhere towards the free end there was this spring mechanism that limited it's flex.

From the drawings I've seen, the part in question is the front-most (flexing) part of the floor which is either an extension of the floor itself or rigidly attached at the rear of the "flexing" part to the main floor of the monocoque. The spring supports are located toward the front of the flexible part supporting it with enough tension to allow it to deflect downward yet limiting it so it doesn't come in contact with the track.

So who is right depends on which end of the flexible part we're talking about. The rear end is rigidly fixed in the traditional sense and the front is held within limits by the spring assembly. The only thing allowing any flexing is the material that part of the floor is made of.

[W8&C]

It was not mounted only on springs, from what I've read/seen.
It was rigidly fixed at one end and somewhere towards the free end there was this spring mechanism that limited it's flex.
Sorry Ioan, I guess its due to my poor English but as I understand you´re talking about something like a „rigid spring“? Isn´t that something like a „round cube“ (and don´t tell us now, that from a microcosmic POV there ain´t no round structures nowhere) or a „edged circle“ (agreed that looked at this circle in macroscopic scales one can´t detect such fine substructures)?

Anyway, as much as I favoured Hamilton this year, I´m happy with Raikkonen´s championship, regardless that funny nonspringing springs. F1 isn´t religion!

[ioan]

Sorry Ioan, I guess its due to my poor English but as I understand you´re talking about something like a „rigid spring“?



The floor has 2 ends.
At 1 end it is rigidly fixed (that's with bolts or screws or glue or whatever you wish to be it, no springs there).
Towards the other end (that is the end that is free on all the F1 cars) there is the spring mounting.

[ShiftingGears]

AND, I wish they would just shut up about it now.
Agreed, Montezemolo's comments make him come off as a bitter team boss[<- edited by janneppi]. Time to move on and look forward to 2008.

Montezemolo's comments make him come off as a bitter team boss.

So isn't he perfectly suited to the job then?

It's not as if any other teams are run by Sir Francis of Assisi.

[W8&amp;C]

The floor has 2 ends.
At 1 end it is rigidly fixed (that's with bolts or screws or glue or whatever you wish to be it, no springs there).
Towards the other end (that is the end that is free on all the F1 cars) there is the spring mounting.
Thanks for that clarification.

Now that sounds to me like you´re talking about something similar to a rocker arm suspension. How do you associate that with a rigid fixation?

But still no doubt for me, that it was within the written rules at Australia. After the event rule changes were made to make sure that a revised construction of that movable floor complies even with the spirit of the rule.

[ioan]

Thanks for that clarification.

Now that sounds to me like you´re talking about something similar to a rocker arm suspension. How do you associate that with a rigid fixation?


This only means that you don't understand it. For what reasons I don't know for sure but I think that you must be trolling around in lack of other more intelligent things to do.

[passmeatissue]

This only means that you don't understand it. For what reasons I don't know for sure but I think that you must be trolling around in lack of other more intelligent things to do.

I think a rocker arm is a good comparison. On one end is a spring with a preload, on the end is other a mounting that allows a change of angle in one plane. Neither rigid nor immobile.

[ioan]

I think a rocker arm is a good comparison. On one end is a spring with a preload, on the end is other a mounting that allows a change of angle in one plane. Neither rigid nor immobile.

:rolleyes: :s :(

[W8&amp;C]

...I think that you must be trolling around in lack of other more intelligent things to do.You´re right! After 30 years of R&D with a quite famous car manufacturer I decided to retire last month, as I´ve earned enough to make up my living without work. Therefore I hang around here just to waste my time.


This only means that you don't understand it.Possible. But not likely. Being a old man on the one side I still think that based on my technical experience I´m able to identify a rocker arm when I see one (or get a description of something similar).

[passmeatissue]

:rolleyes: :s :(

Huge contribution to the debate. :rolleyes:

[SGWilko]

Huge contribution to the debate. :rolleyes:

:up:

Hook, line & (over engineered by a team of boffins) sinkered!! Touche. ;)

[ioan]

Huge contribution to the debate. :rolleyes:

Got tired talking to deaf people (and that should be taken as a compliment by those regarded).

[ioan]

You´re right! After 30 years of R&D with a quite famous car manufacturer I decided to retire last month, as I´ve earned enough to make up my living without work. Therefore I hang around here just to waste my time.

You must have been working for Trabant or Wartburg.
It just goes to prove that f1 and road cars (especially the ones made of cardboard) have little in common.