The "Cold Fuel" saga continued [Part 2]

[pino]

For some technical reasons the original thread has gone, so please continue the discussion in here. Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience :)

[wmcot]

I feel that the response from Williams points out the impossibility of proving the case:

"• Article 6.5.4 of the FIA Technical Regulations states that no fuel onboard the car may be more than 10C below ambient temperature.
• There is no specified source for the ambient temperature measurement, and there is no homologated and sealed sensor for measuring fuel temperature either in the fuel rigs or on-board the cars.
• Meteo France, who provide official temperature measurements for the FIA and Formula One teams, recorded a maximum ambient temperature during the Brazilian GP of 33C.
• The lowest temperatures recorded by Williams' precise on-board sensors in the fuel tank and in the fuel injection rail on either of its cars
during the Grand Prix were 31C and 35C respectively.
• Consequently, as the Stewards found, there was no breach of the regulations.
• All of the preceding points are consistent with all of the clarifications and opinions related to fuel temperatures expressed in Team Managers' Meetings and other such forums. The views offered in these meetings fully support Williams' case as presented to the FIA ICA."

From Pitpass: http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=33416

[F1boat]

In my opinion Williams showed why McLaren should not have appealed.

[markabilly]

For some technical reasons the original thread has gone, so please continue the discussion in here. Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience :)
More conspiracy to hide what really happenned.......

[ioan]

More conspiracy to hide what really happenned.......

Nah, it was a technical problem with the finger that pushed the wrong button! :D ;)

[markabilly]

Nah, it was a technical problem with the finger that pushed the wrong button! :D ;)
So lewis hamilton is now a moderator? Or did someone else just choke under the pressure??? :D :s mokin:

[CNR]

http://www.paddocktalk.com/news/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=72245


Formula one team founder Peter Sauber has criticised McLaren for trying to win the 2007 championship in an appeals hearing this week.
The Swiss, who still owns a small stake of the outfit known as BMW-Sauber, said he did not believe McLaren chiefs who insist that the 'cool fuel' saga was not a veiled and desperate last effort to steal the crown from Ferrari's Kimi Raikkonen.
http://www.paddocktalk.com/news/html/themes/PostNuke/images/pix-t.gifhttp://www.paddocktalk.com/news/html/themes/PostNuke/images/pix-t.gif
"This season deserved a better finish," Sauber wrote in the Swiss newspaper Blick.
He pointed out that Martin Whitmarsh and Norbert Haug have been at pains recently to point out that the London hearing was simply about clarifying the rules.
But Sauber, referring to the argument barrister Ian Mill took to the court, said: "Apparently their lawyer thought something else.
"His strategy was clearly to establish the disqualification of Rosberg, Kubica and Heidfeld," Sauber added.
Sam Michael, technical director for Williams - the other team accused by McLaren of illegally chilling fuel in Brazil last month - said after the hearing that "the proper place" to seek a clarification about the rules is the Technical Working Group, not a court.
Ferrari test driver Marc Gene took an even stronger line, arguing that McLaren's failure to admit to wanting the title on appeal was akin to "lying".
"Now, it appears as though they wanted nothing more and nothing less," the Spaniard told the news agency EFE.
Italian newspaper Corriere dello Sport headlined the Court of Appeal verdict on Friday as the "triumph of justice".
Tuttosport added: "A difficult year for formula one has ended. Hopefully now the true values of sport will return".

[Valve Bounce]

Listen fellah!! are you coming here to discuss anything, or just coming here to give us a hard time?

[Valve Bounce]

..........in the reason they gave for their appeal. This article by Sam Michael sets out some of the facts that came out. http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_2889585,00.html
Obviously when they said they didn't want to win the WDC, but only sought rule clarification, and then hired 4 top lawyers to put forward their case, and then refused to reveal the temperature readings of their own fuel despite Ferrari, BMW and Williams providing theirs, then one has to wonder what their motives really were.

For ioan's benefit, this is not hypocrisy - it is deceit.

[F1boat]

..........in the reason they gave for their appeal. This article by Sam Michael sets out some of the facts that came out. http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_2889585,00.html
Obviously when they said they didn't want to win the WDC, but only sought rule clarification, and then hired 4 top lawyers to put forward their case, and then refused to reveal the temperature readings of their own fuel despite Ferrari, BMW and Williams providing theirs, then one has to wonder what their motives really were.

For ioan's benefit, this is not hypocrisy - it is deceit.
I said it in other thread and I repeat it - this is purely and simply evil. :(

[Valve Bounce]

I said it in other thread and I repeat it - this is purely and simply evil. :(


Not really, one has to admire the lengths some of these guys will go to in order to win. Deceitful, duplicitous is fine. Evil is something rather different - like if one team went out to kill or mame or poison another team's driver or team manager, then that is evil.

This is simply cheating, lying or deceiving, something many cheating husbands do every day.

[markabilly]

Not really, one has to admire the lengths some of these guys will go to in order to win. Deceitful, duplicitous is fine. Evil is something rather different - like if one team went out to kill or mame or poison another team's driver or team manager, then that is evil.

This is simply cheating, lying or deceiving, something many cheating husbands do every day.

Admiration for liars and cheats? A very good standard of sportsmanship--as long as you do not kill anybody, it is "fine" to do whatever?


No, such acts demonstrate a lack of character and backbone. If they are willing to lie, then where does one draw a line? Murder to win? Why not, if they were more than willing to lie to win, why not go forward all the way?

But this was NOT about winning, it was about being too much the coward to admit their true motives, even after the ruling, even after their lawyer let the cat out of the bag.


This is the worst, most obvious, clear an example of both a lack of character and backbone--it was simply pure cowardice. The only reason they lied, was of fear of PR backlash.

It was not "a desire to win", but fear of how they would appear to the public. If they had not had this fear, then there is no reason to be hiding like theives in the night, trying to sneak in the backdoor.

Example 1 of many:

Afraid of PR backlash, Mac claimed they wanted rule clarification and to aid the teams in such, even in their "after the ruling" statement:

"In the interests of rule clarification and rule consistency, we lodged our appeal,"

"Our appeal was merely a logical and procedural step in the process begun by the FIA technical delegate's written report.

"We hope this fuel temperature issue does not remain unresolved in Formula One next year.

"But we look forward to working with the FIA and the teams on clarifying matters to avoid a similar situation occurring again."

Example 2 of many:

Hamilton after the ruling (and continuing with the same song as before the hearing):

"Neither I, nor anyone at McLaren, had any desire to take it off him in court. That was not the purpose of the team's appeal. "


Example 3 of many:

Speaking a day before the hearing, Whitmarsh, McLaren's CEO said: "Like all true devotees of motor sport, we would never like to see a Drivers' Championship decided in court rather than on track.

"Finding a way to award the Drivers' Championship to Lewis (Hamilton) retrospectively is not at all, however, what this is about



Their lawyer let the dog out, showing the true lack of backbone of these cowardly liars when he made the appeal in the hearing:

"It's clear the infringement of this rule did have a performance- enhancing effect. If you put in cool fuel it increases the horse power.

"The principle is clear: if there was a performance enhancement, there was a breach and there has to be a disqualification.

"I ask you to address this as though it was any team at any stage of the season.

"It cannot make a difference it was the last race of the season, and that it will decide the championship.

"Invariably, whenever there has been a disqualification, there has been a reclassification."


Now does RD step up at the hearing and tell his lawyer to shut up, you are acting totally outside the pale of human dignity, without client authorization, you are a foolish mouthpiece making such shameful, unauthorized statements who should be disbarred and sent off to sell used cars in Siberia?

Oh, NO!! Indeed, never, not one such word from RD even after the hearing--why not? Call your lawyer a liar who has acted in violation of his oath and without authorization, means he is entitled to defend himself against such slander and demonstrate he was so authorized!!!

CASE SHOULD NOW BE CLOSED

What, not happy, want some more kool aid, okay, then drink this:

(1) As pointed out, mc refused to supply their temp readings at the hearing---so much for working with the teams in investigating and clarifying the rules about temperatures. Obviously NOT interested.

(2) As Williams tech director Williams said, McLaren did not have to take the route of an appeal, as they could have sought clarification on the regulations from F1's Technical Working Group.

Remember how the flexible floor issues were resolved.....

(3) And complaining about the ruling, that some how the judges sidestepped the issue, is more nonsense of the same old lies. It also demonstrates the real reason for the appeal, DQ drivers to give the title to LH.


BOTTOM LINE:

Mc wanted exact enforcement of the rules and exact enforcement was what they recieved.

All they had to was challenge the result, and the matter of whether to disqualify or not would be heard under exact enforcement of the rules. Fail to properly challenge, and the appeal should be dismissed under exact enforcment of the rules.

But since they wanted rule clarification (and not a DQ), such a clarification is something more properly done under other methods as pointed out by Michaels of Williams, then why are so many Mac and LH fans so gloom and crying about this ruling?

Ah, there is the rub......rule clarification was not what they really wanted when they tried to sneak in the backdoor........ :down:

[Valve Bounce]

Admiration for liars and cheats? A very good standard of sportsmanship--as long as you do not kill anybody, it is "fine" to do whatever?


No, such acts demonstrate a lack of character and backbone. If they are willing to lie, then where does one draw a line? Murder to win? Why not, if they were more than willing to lie to win, why not go forward all the way?

But this was NOT about winning, it was about being too much the coward to admit their true motives, even after the ruling, even after their lawyer let the cat out of the bag.


This is the worst, most obvious, clear an example of both a lack of character and backbone--it was simply pure cowardice. The only reason they lied, was of fear of PR backlash.

It was not "a desire to win", but fear of how they would appear to the public. If they had not had this fear, then there is no reason to be hiding like theives in the night, trying to sneak in the backdoor.

Example 1 of many:

Afraid of PR backlash, Mac claimed they wanted rule clarification and to aid the teams in such, even in their "after the ruling" statement:

"In the interests of rule clarification and rule consistency, we lodged our appeal,"

"Our appeal was merely a logical and procedural step in the process begun by the FIA technical delegate's written report.

"We hope this fuel temperature issue does not remain unresolved in Formula One next year.

"But we look forward to working with the FIA and the teams on clarifying matters to avoid a similar situation occurring again."

Example 2 of many:

Hamilton after the ruling (and continuing with the same song as before the hearing):

"Neither I, nor anyone at McLaren, had any desire to take it off him in court. That was not the purpose of the team's appeal. "


Example 3 of many:

Speaking a day before the hearing, Whitmarsh, McLaren's CEO said: "Like all true devotees of motor sport, we would never like to see a Drivers' Championship decided in court rather than on track.

"Finding a way to award the Drivers' Championship to Lewis (Hamilton) retrospectively is not at all, however, what this is about



Their lawyer let the dog out, showing the true lack of backbone of these cowardly liars when he made the appeal in the hearing:

"It's clear the infringement of this rule did have a performance- enhancing effect. If you put in cool fuel it increases the horse power.

"The principle is clear: if there was a performance enhancement, there was a breach and there has to be a disqualification.

"I ask you to address this as though it was any team at any stage of the season.

"It cannot make a difference it was the last race of the season, and that it will decide the championship.

"Invariably, whenever there has been a disqualification, there has been a reclassification."


Now does RD step up at the hearing and tell his lawyer to shut up, you are acting totally outside the pale of human dignity, without client authorization, you are a foolish mouthpiece making such shameful, unauthorized statements who should be disbarred and sent off to sell used cars in Siberia?

Oh, NO!! Indeed, never, not one such word from RD even after the hearing--why not? Call your lawyer a liar who has acted in violation of his oath and without authorization, means he is entitled to defend himself against such slander and demonstrate he was so authorized!!!

CASE SHOULD NOW BE CLOSED

What, not happy, want some more kool aid, okay, then drink this:

(1) As pointed out, mc refused to supply their temp readings at the hearing---so much for working with the teams in investigating and clarifying the rules about temperatures. Obviously NOT interested.

(2) As Williams tech director Williams said, McLaren did not have to take the route of an appeal, as they could have sought clarification on the regulations from F1's Technical Working Group.

Remember how the flexible floor issues were resolved.....

(3) And complaining about the ruling, that some how the judges sidestepped the issue, is more nonsense of the same old lies. It also demonstrates the real reason for the appeal, DQ drivers to give the title to LH.


BOTTOM LINE:

Mc wanted exact enforcement of the rules and exact enforcement was what they recieved.

All they had to was challenge the result, and the matter of whether to disqualify or not would be heard under exact enforcement of the rules. Fail to properly challenge, and the appeal should be dismissed under exact enforcment of the rules.

But since they wanted rule clarification (and not a DQ), such a clarification is something more properly done under other methods as pointed out by Michaels of Williams, then why are so many Mac and LH fans so gloom and crying about this ruling?

Ah, there is the rub......rule clarification was not what they really wanted when they tried to sneak in the backdoor........ :down:

Common man, have some koolaid and then read my post again. When you say "One has to admire the lengths......", it simply means one has to be astonished at the lengths ............ in an ironical way. It sure as hell doesn't mean one must admire the cheats or the liars, and so on.

That is why I use the words duplicitous and deceit.

But when you get to evil, that is something different and it only clouds the issue. I would not go out to say that anyone hired by McLaren in this case was evil, but sure as hell they were deceitful and duplicitous. Yeah!! and hateful in their lying ways too.

Would you not agree that is what I am saying? Everything you point to says:McLaren deceit and McLaren duplicity. OK, and I'll add lying for good measure.

OK!! I'll even throw in gutless for good measure.
I used to be happy that I cheered for Mika, then Kimi, but this last season McLaren has somehow opened up a cesspit and let out the stench.

How about that?

[Tazio]

Admiration for liars and cheats? A very good standard of sportsmanship--as long as you do not kill anybody, it is "fine" to do whatever?


No, such acts demonstrate a lack of character and backbone. If they are willing to lie, then where does one draw a line? Murder to win? Why not, if they were more than willing to lie to win, why not go forward all the way?

But this was NOT about winning, it was about being too much the coward to admit their true motives, even after the ruling, even after their lawyer let the cat out of the bag.


This is the worst, most obvious, clear an example of both a lack of character and backbone--it was simply pure cowardice. The only reason they lied, was of fear of PR backlash.

It was not "a desire to win", but fear of how they would appear to the public. If they had not had this fear, then there is no reason to be hiding like theives in the night, trying to sneak in the backdoor.

Example 1 of many:

Afraid of PR backlash, Mac claimed they wanted rule clarification and to aid the teams in such, even in their "after the ruling" statement:

"In the interests of rule clarification and rule consistency, we lodged our appeal,"

"Our appeal was merely a logical and procedural step in the process begun by the FIA technical delegate's written report.

"We hope this fuel temperature issue does not remain unresolved in Formula One next year.

"But we look forward to working with the FIA and the teams on clarifying matters to avoid a similar situation occurring again."

Example 2 of many:

Hamilton after the ruling (and continuing with the same song as before the hearing):

"Neither I, nor anyone at McLaren, had any desire to take it off him in court. That was not the purpose of the team's appeal. "


Example 3 of many:

Speaking a day before the hearing, Whitmarsh, McLaren's CEO said: "Like all true devotees of motor sport, we would never like to see a Drivers' Championship decided in court rather than on track.

"Finding a way to award the Drivers' Championship to Lewis (Hamilton) retrospectively is not at all, however, what this is about



Their lawyer let the dog out, showing the true lack of backbone of these cowardly liars when he made the appeal in the hearing:

"It's clear the infringement of this rule did have a performance- enhancing effect. If you put in cool fuel it increases the horse power.

"The principle is clear: if there was a performance enhancement, there was a breach and there has to be a disqualification.

"I ask you to address this as though it was any team at any stage of the season.

"It cannot make a difference it was the last race of the season, and that it will decide the championship.

"Invariably, whenever there has been a disqualification, there has been a reclassification."


Now does RD step up at the hearing and tell his lawyer to shut up, you are acting totally outside the pale of human dignity, without client authorization, you are a foolish mouthpiece making such shameful, unauthorized statements who should be disbarred and sent off to sell used cars in Siberia?

Oh, NO!! Indeed, never, not one such word from RD even after the hearing--why not? Call your lawyer a liar who has acted in violation of his oath and without authorization, means he is entitled to defend himself against such slander and demonstrate he was so authorized!!!

CASE SHOULD NOW BE CLOSED

What, not happy, want some more kool aid, okay, then drink this:

(1) As pointed out, mc refused to supply their temp readings at the hearing---so much for working with the teams in investigating and clarifying the rules about temperatures. Obviously NOT interested.

(2) As Williams tech director Williams said, McLaren did not have to take the route of an appeal, as they could have sought clarification on the regulations from F1's Technical Working Group.

Remember how the flexible floor issues were resolved.....

(3) And complaining about the ruling, that some how the judges sidestepped the issue, is more nonsense of the same old lies. It also demonstrates the real reason for the appeal, DQ drivers to give the title to LH.


BOTTOM LINE:

Mc wanted exact enforcement of the rules and exact enforcement was what they recieved.

All they had to was challenge the result, and the matter of whether to disqualify or not would be heard under exact enforcement of the rules. Fail to properly challenge, and the appeal should be dismissed under exact enforcment of the rules.

But since they wanted rule clarification (and not a DQ), such a clarification is something more properly done under other methods as pointed out by Michaels of Williams, then why are so many Mac and LH fans so gloom and crying about this ruling?

Ah, there is the rub......rule clarification was not what they really wanted when they tried to sneak in the backdoor........ :down:
The short version.
"Ya' awl boys got whipped"!

[airshifter]

Top F1 teams will consistently push the edge of the rules, sometimes with transparency and sometimes without.

If nothing else, regardless of the original motive, this case should clarify and make the rules concrete. If this is done, no single team will be able to gain advantage that later may or may not be subject to review and/or penalty.

[Valve Bounce]

Top F1 teams will consistently push the edge of the rules, sometimes with transparency and sometimes without.

If nothing else, regardless of the original motive, this case should clarify and make the rules concrete. If this is done, no single team will be able to gain advantage that later may or may not be subject to review and/or penalty.


Sure. In the past, many rules have been bent or circumvented in order for one team to gain an advantage. Look at Bernie's fan car, for a start.

I would state again that the temperature control of fuels is at best amateurish and lacking in precision. I have said several times that the rules and protocols for such controls need to be very clear and precise.

Having said all that, I can only say that Ron Dennis's lies about seeking clarification would label him as a lying conniving polecat. Having read what Williams and BMW's guys had to say (I'll leave Ferrari out at this stage as they were only indirectly involved), I just wonder which teams can really say with a straight face that they respect Ron Dennis.

He's lost me when he came out with this not wanting to win the championship but only want clarification, then comes in with a team of 4 highly paid lawyers who say that Lewis Hamilton should be made the winner and BMW and Williams must be d/q'd. I have kept a very low level of RD up till this point, and let others blast away, but I must say now that Ron Dennis stinks like an Asian cesspool.

I trust I have made my position transparent and clear.

[gshevlin]

Good Lord, do you guys just want to assemble the lynch mob and head off to the Paragon Centre right now? While you're at it, why don't you bring along the media so that we can all watch the McLaren leadership being tarred and feathered prior to some good old-fashioned torture, followed by a few public hangings...
McLaren appealed because the race stewards decided that Williams and BMW violated the published fuel temperature rules, yet no punishment was assessed against them. I would have appealed in their situation, and the FIA ruling is, to put it bluntly, a large pile of steaming brown fertilizer. They rule that the appeal is inadmissible, after going to the expense of having everybody turn up to hear all the parties state their case?
This is not credible enforcement of rules and regulations. It makes the Keystone Cops look like geniuses.
McLaren had every right to appeal, and I have no sympathy for anybody who tries to claim otherwise. Just because they were found in breach of regulations on another matter does not require them to STFU on this matter.

[Valve Bounce]

You obviously havn't been following teh various releases concerning this. McLaren could have protested the results, they had half an hour within hte results being posted, and they knew all this but they chose not to. Then they said they only wanted to appeal to seek clarification of the rules, and not want Lewis Hamilton to be awarded the championship. This has all been recorded. Then they hire 4 top lawyers at greay expense saying Lewis Hamilton should be awarded the championship. Am I getting through?

This shows the deceit of Ron Dennis, pure and simple. The bugger is a lying polecat.

[GP-M3]

I lost respect for Lewis on this too... he could have come out and said something definitive like: I will not accept the WDC title for this year. It was decided on track, and I will not accept it now.

Instead, he kept toeing the Mac line and just saying it shouldn't be decided this way, or that it is preferable, but I kept noticing he never said he would not accept it via the court decision.

[wmcot]

Good Lord, do you guys just want to assemble the lynch mob and head off to the Paragon Centre right now? While you're at it, why don't you bring along the media so that we can all watch the McLaren leadership being tarred and feathered prior to some good old-fashioned torture, followed by a few public hangings...


Where do I sign up?? ;)

[F1boat]

Not really, one has to admire the lengths some of these guys will go to in order to win. Deceitful, duplicitous is fine. Evil is something rather different - like if one team went out to kill or mame or poison another team's driver or team manager, then that is evil.

This is simply cheating, lying or deceiving, something many cheating husbands do every day.

And it is still evil. It is not insanely evil, like killing, but it is terrible. To try to ruin the boyhood dream of your favorite driver, and to lie, and to steal and only because you are an old, incompetent, vile piece of crap. One would say that I hate Ron, but this slime does not deserve hatred. I simply detest him.
Good that he lost!

[Hawkmoon]

Good Lord, do you guys just want to assemble the lynch mob and head off to the Paragon Centre right now? While you're at it, why don't you bring along the media so that we can all watch the McLaren leadership being tarred and feathered prior to some good old-fashioned torture, followed by a few public hangings...
McLaren appealed because the race stewards decided that Williams and BMW violated the published fuel temperature rules, yet no punishment was assessed against them. I would have appealed in their situation, and the FIA ruling is, to put it bluntly, a large pile of steaming brown fertilizer. They rule that the appeal is inadmissible, after going to the expense of having everybody turn up to hear all the parties state their case?
This is not credible enforcement of rules and regulations. It makes the Keystone Cops look like geniuses.
McLaren had every right to appeal, and I have no sympathy for anybody who tries to claim otherwise. Just because they were found in breach of regulations on another matter does not require them to STFU on this matter.

You haven't been paying attention, have you? ;)

The CoA's ruling is to the letter of the law. Surely McLaren and their fans can appreciate that. After all, isn't that what the whole affair was about? The correct application of the rules, no?

As Valve said, McLaren could have protested the result but chose not to. One has to assume that they didn't for PR reasons. Instead, they chose to appeal, which they didn't have a right to do. Again, this appears to be a PR related decision. "Clarification" appeals look so much friendlier than protests afterall.

In the end McLaren spent a wad of cash on lawyers, lost the appeal, failed to win the WDC and still didn't get their so desperately sought after "clarification". Not only that, they got more bad PR than if they had just protested in the first place.


Where do I sign up?? ;)

You'll have to take a number mate, because there's gonna be a bloody long line! :D

[ioan]

I bet Alonso is happy that he isn't part of a certain team anymore! :D

[ArrowsFA1]

Good Lord, do you guys just want to assemble the lynch mob and head off to the Paragon Centre right now? While you're at it, why don't you bring along the media so that we can all watch the McLaren leadership being tarred and feathered prior to some good old-fashioned torture, followed by a few public hangings...
That's the very least that some would like to see happen :dozey:

McLaren appealed because the race stewards decided that Williams and BMW violated the published fuel temperature rules, yet no punishment was assessed against them. I would have appealed in their situation, and the FIA ruling is, to put it bluntly, a large pile of steaming brown fertilizer. They rule that the appeal is inadmissible, after going to the expense of having everybody turn up to hear all the parties state their case?
This is not credible enforcement of rules and regulations. It makes the Keystone Cops look like geniuses.
The problem with that is that the appeal is being seen in the context of everything else that has gone on this season. It is not being seen as an issue in its' own right, particularly because of what was at stake and who was affected. Had this happened in the middle of the season would there really have been such a fuss?

It's hard to see any other team letting those results stand without any kind of action when the FIA themselves said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63557) the Williams & BMW fuel was outside the limits prescribed by the regulations. Had Jean Todt, for example, seen one or both of his cars beaten by three cars running fuel that was outside the regulations, would he really have happily sat back and done nothing?

Then we get onto the issue of how McLaren appealed. It's argued that they tried to get the results of the WDC changed by appealing the stewards decision rather than by protesting the results of the race, and that their claim that they were doing so in the interests of rule clarification was a lie.

Of course, had they come out and said they wanted the WDC and this was their only hope of getting it everyone would have admired them...wouldn't they?

Had they protested the race results, rather than the stewards decision, everyone would have admired them for it...wouldn't they?

Could they really have done nothing, and ignored the FIA's own view that there had been a breach of the regulations which potentially affected their own driver? Of course they could, but why should they?

There are those who say that McLaren's lawyer (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63949) was arguing for the WDC to be handed to Hamilton, but at no point was he saying that. According to his words (not the headlines) he was arguing for the FIA's rules to be applied. Now, the logical extension of that could have been a DQ for Williams & BMW, and Hamilton gaining the places their drivers lost as a result, but the penalty was for the FIA to decide, had they not ducked out of making a decision.

My point is whichever way McLaren took action, and however they worded it, they were inviting criticism, and would have been fully aware of that given the context of the year as a whole. However, there is clearly a need for clarity regarding fuel temperature regulations, something that Mario Theissen (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64016) recognises, and this is what was at isssue, as McLaren have said all along.

The reaction against McLaren is symptomatic of a season which has turned F1 into a poisonous pantomime, and that, in my view, is very sad. There are those within the paddock who, perhaps inevitably, have poured fuel on the flames at every opportunity to exploit the situation for their own ends. Fortunately there are also those who have taken a more measured approach, and I hope those voices are heard more next season.

[F1boat]

Arrows, you said:
"Could they really have done nothing, and ignored the FIA's own view that there had been a breach of the regulations which potentially affected their own driver? Of course they could, but why should they?"
I think that they should have remained silent, because their drivers were spared earlier this season and because they claim that they do what is best for the sport. They brought this hatred to themselves with their arrogance and hypocrisy. Tell me, Arrows, you are following F1 since decades, you know that Ferrari have fought with many, many teams - in recent years with powerful operations such as Williams BMW and Renault F1, which at certain times seemed unbeatable. Renault actually bested Ferrari. And many Ferrari fans disliked Renault and Williams before them. But I don't remember such hatred to a rival - not to Renault and not to Williams BMW. I think that the fault is of McLaren and Ron. Flavio has said some bad things about Ferrari, Frank, too, but Ron was really over to top.
So it is not fair to blame Ferrari fans and Kimi fans that they dislike Dennis so much. He deserves it.

[ArrowsFA1]

I think that they should have remained silent, because their drivers were spared earlier this season and because they claim that they do what is best for the sport.
Their drivers were spared any penalty from the FIA in exchange for information, and I do not see why that should have any bearing on Williams & BMW possibly running fuel outside the regulations in Brazil.

As for remaining silent - why should any team not take action if, in their view, they have suffered as a result of a breach of the regulations? Should we expect teams to remain silent in similar circumstances in future?

However I do understand some of the criticism directed at McLaren for couching their appeal in terms of a rules clarification. That clarification was certainly part of it, and needed, but it's clear that taking the process to its' conclusion may have benefitted their driver. McLaren would have been aware of that.

They brought this hatred to themselves with their arrogance and hypocrisy...I don't remember such hatred to a rival - not to Renault and not to Williams BMW. I think that the fault is of McLaren and Ron...So it is not fair to blame Ferrari fans and Kimi fans that they dislike Dennis so much. He deserves it.
I do think McLaren have been portrayed as "the bad guys". In a media lead world that needs quick and digestible headlines, that are then repeated repeatedly as fact, this has distorted much of what has gone on.

It's hard to square the action against McLaren with the reaction to similar cases of F1 espionage, and in that sense I do think that Ferrari could equally be accused of hypocrisy. Their statements in connection with McLaren have been deliberately inflammatory, whereas they were happy to deal with the Toyota case in a far more measured and quiet way. Why? Because Toyota were not a threat.

There have been inferrences, theories and conclusions drawn from very little in all of this, and the personal nature of the attacks in individuals involved, not just Ron Dennis, have been very unpleasant. The atmosphere in the paddock has been described as "poisonous" and this has spread to the media and fans alike.

That's not healthy for F1, and I hope the mood improves next year.

[Valve Bounce]

That's the very least that some would like to see happen :dozey:





There are those who say that McLaren's lawyer (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63949) was arguing for the WDC to be handed to Hamilton, but at no point was he saying that. According to his words (not the headlines) he was arguing for the FIA's rules to be applied. Now, the logical extension of that could have been a DQ for Williams & BMW, and Hamilton gaining the places their drivers lost as a result, but the penalty was for the FIA to decide, had they not ducked out of making a decision.


The reaction against McLaren is symptomatic of a season which has turned F1 into a poisonous pantomime, and that, in my view, is very sad. There are those within the paddock who, perhaps inevitably, have poured fuel on the flames at every opportunity to exploit the situation for their own ends. Fortunately there are also those who have taken a more measured approach, and I hope those voices are heard more next season.

I'll refrain from commenting on the preceding paragraphs as they are purely rhetoric. However, from teh article you quote: ""Whenever in the past there has been a disqualification, there has been a re-classification... All we ask you to do is what normally happens." , to say that McLaren's lawyers were not seeking for Lewis Hamilton to be made WDC is very misleading. I reject that the FIA ducked out of making a decision - McLaren knew the correct procedures for a protest and they preferred to come up with an appeal camouflaged in the guise of a rule clarification. Tell me honestly, do you believe that yourself?

I had kept a very low profile on this subject until I read the articles by both Williams and BMW. If Ron Dennis or his McLaren partners wanted [b]CLARIFICATION;/b], all they had to do was to approach the TWG. http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_2889585,00.html

To me, it was clear that McLaren/Mercedes wanted Lewis Hamilton to get the WDC by default had their so called appeal, powered by 4 high profile lawyers succeeded. Why would anyone hire 4 bloody high powered lawyers to seek a rule clarification?

The final insult to our intelligence came when both Williams and BMW furnished the temperatures obtained from their cars, but McLaren refused to reveal theirs. That's when McLaren lost me completely. To me, they lost credibility, and their duplicity became very clear.

You can say that much has been poisonous this season, and I don't dispute that. Funny how it all revolved around McLaren.

Sorry Mike, but this time I have to disagree with you.

[F1boat]

Sorry that I don't know how to quote properly:
"Their drivers were spared any penalty from the FIA in exchange for information"
I have heard suggestions that this was about superlicense, not points. It is fact that Max advocated for banning the drivers from the WDC, despite promises and Bernie wanted them to compete.

Velve said:
"The final insult to our intelligence came when both Williams and BMW furnished the temperatures obtained from their cars, but McLaren refused to reveal theirs. That's when McLaren lost me completely. To me, they lost credibility, and their duplicity became very clear.

You can say that much has been poisonous this season, and I don't dispute that. Funny how it all revolved around McLaren."
I agree completely.

[Valve Bounce]

"It has become quite clear that the regulations state a very precise difference of temperature of 10 degrees (centigrade) but they do not define precisely how and when the two reference points are taken," said Theissen.

"That is the issue and in my view it should not have gone to the Court of Appeal but to the Technical Working Group in order for the technical directors to come up with a clear regulation on how to do it in the future."

When asked if the matter needs to be resolved before the 2008 season, Theissen said: "Absolutely."

[Valve Bounce]

Sorry that I don't know how to quote properly:


Well you go to the post that you want to quote, and click on the QUOTE icon at the bottom right hand corner; try it - it's fun.

[F1boat]

Also about the Toyota matter. I think that Toyota paid to Ferrari not to appeal their car in FIA. Japanese are touchy about honour and scandals and maybe they paid a lot to Ferrari to keep silent, better than to be humiliated in front of everyone.
Maybe that's why they lost the plot in following seasons.

[F1boat]

Well you go to the post that you want to quote, and click on the QUOTE icon at the bottom right hand corner; try it - it's fun.

Yes :)
But I don't know how to quote different posts in one of mine. Sorry again.

[ArrowsFA1]

I'll refrain from commenting on the preceding paragraphs as they are purely rhetoric. However, from teh article you quote: ""Whenever in the past there has been a disqualification, there has been a re-classification... All we ask you to do is what normally happens." , to say that McLaren's lawyers were not seeking for Lewis Hamilton to be made WDC is very misleading.
I don't think it's misleading to suggest that just because one of the possible outcomes may have resulted in that outcome. The lawyers can ask for re-classification, but it is up to the FIA what penalty is imposed, and the FIA did not have to re-classify the results had the appeal been successful.

Had the FIA accepted the appeal, removed the Williams & BMW cars from the final classification, but not re-classified those remaining then I think that would have been appropriate and would have satisfied McLaren. But that's just my opinion and we'll never know what may have happened and what the reaction would have been.


I reject that the FIA ducked out of making a decision - McLaren knew the correct procedures for a protest and they preferred to come up with an appeal camouflaged in the guise of a rule clarification.
As far as I understood it McLaren had the choice of either protesting the race results, or appealing the stewards' decision. They chose the latter. Apparently this appeal wasn't done in the proper way but surely someone should have recognised this promptly and the FIA should have thrown it out before everyone got together on the 16th November.

Sorry Mike, but this time I have to disagree with you.
:cool: :)

[F1boat]

As far as I understood it McLaren had the choice of either protesting the race results, or appealing the stewards' decision. They chose the latter. Apparently this appeal wasn't done in the proper way but surely someone should have recognised this promptly and the FIA should have thrown it out before everyone got together on the 16th November.


I think that Max wanted to humiliate McLaren. It is childish, but in my opinion the appeal was childish as well. So I must admit that I am quite happy with FIA ruling.

[ioan]

I don't think it's misleading to suggest that just because one of the possible outcomes may have resulted in that outcome. The lawyers can ask for re-classification, but it is up to the FIA what penalty is imposed, and the FIA did not have to re-classify the results had the appeal been successful.

But the lawyers act at the team's request Arrows, they do what they are asked to do.
Saying that they didn't went for the title because they said so is a very very poor excuse, and if you actually believe that than you honestly have a problem with distinguishing between reality and fantasy. And I'm really surprised by this.

[ioan]

As far as I understood it McLaren had the choice of either protesting the race results, or appealing the stewards' decision. They chose the latter.

No, they chose the former but also chose to disguise it under the later.


Apparently this appeal wasn't done in the proper way but surely someone should have recognised this promptly and the FIA should have thrown it out before everyone got together on the 16th November.


If the FIA chose to throw out McLaren's appeal before listening to their version you would be stating that they robbed McLaren of the title. :rolleyes:

[markabilly]

I don't think it's misleading to suggest that just because one of the possible outcomes may have resulted in that outcome. The lawyers can ask for re-classification, but it is up to the FIA what penalty is imposed, and the FIA did not have to re-classify the results had the appeal been successful.

Had the FIA accepted the appeal, removed the Williams & BMW cars from the final classification, but not re-classified those remaining then I think that would have been appropriate and would have satisfied McLaren. But that's just my opinion and we'll never know what may have happened and what the reaction would have been.


As far as I understood it McLaren had the choice of either protesting the race results, or appealing the stewards' decision. They chose the latter. Apparently this appeal wasn't done in the proper way but surely someone should have recognised this promptly and the FIA should have thrown it out before everyone got together on the 16th November.

:cool: :)


"It has become quite clear that the regulations state a very precise difference of temperature of 10 degrees (centigrade) but they do not define precisely how and when the two reference points are taken," said Theissen.

"That is the issue and in my view it should not have gone to the Court of Appeal but to the Technical Working Group in order for the technical directors to come up with a clear regulation on how to do it in the future."

When asked if the matter needs to be resolved before the 2008 season, Theissen said: "Absolutely."

The above sets of quotes demonstate exactly the problem and hypocrisy of mac when they lied about seeking rule clarification. The rule actually refers to on board temp of fuel, not the temp of the fuel in the fuel rig before it is pumped into the car.

Mac did not even furnish this information about their own fuel temp at the hearing, a hearing that was completely unnecessary to "clarifiy the rules"--how quickly we forget the "flexible floor" procedures.......

"The lawyers can ask for re-classification, but it is up to the FIA what penalty is imposed, and the FIA did not have to re-classify the results had the appeal been successful.--" Well, point is that lawyer when he asked for the reclassification, made an appeal of the race results, and no challenge to the race results had been made at proper time.

And nowhere is RD heard to be disavowing the actions of their lawyer, as in NO, he should not have said that, this was unauthorized by Mac......

"As far as I understood it McLaren had the choice of either protesting the race results, or appealing the stewards' decision." Had they been the team that was the subject of the inquiry--BMW for example, and received a penalty, that might be true, but they were a team that was not the subject of the inquiry, so a protest of the race result and an appeal of the denial of the protest was the only route available. mac knew that.

"They chose the latter." To quote you, Arrows, from an earlier post as to why they chose the latter and improper route: "Of course, had they come out and said they wanted the WDC and this was their only hope of getting it everyone would have admired them...wouldn't they?......and however they worded it, they were inviting criticism, and would have been fully aware of that given the context of the year as a whole"--that is what does make them cowardly liars, trying to sneak in the backdoor.

and finally back to the original quote cited above: "Apparently this appeal wasn't done in the proper way but surely someone should have recognised this promptly and the FIA should have thrown it out before everyone got together on the 16th November." The FIA? The only body who could properly rule when an appeal is made to that body, is that particular body, a fundemental principle of law, plus the howling of LH and Mac fans over such a denial would have been beyond deafening.

So Mac had its day in court, and even refused to cooperate in its alleged "rule clarification" attempt....... :rolleyes: but they got exactly what they asked for--a strict application of rules, but to its appeal :eek:

[ArrowsFA1]

...if you actually believe that than you honestly have a problem with distinguishing between reality and fantasy. And I'm really surprised by this.
In a nutshell I do not see the McLaren team in the way many here appear to.

I'm pleased that the fuel appeal did not result in a change to the WDC result because we have a deserving 2007 Champion.

[airshifter]

Ah, the most caustic of current threads continues!

So in essence what some people are saying is that if a team knows of a breach of rules that would affect race outcome, they should not push the issue?

I'm personally glad that the issue didn't change WDC standings (see my sig as it's been since the start of the year), but on the same basis after being fined a huge amount of money for their wrongdoings, McLaren had every right to still push the issue on other wrongdoings.

Reverse the outcome and ask yourself if you would still be happy with the results. Hamilton wins the title, and afterwards it's found that both he and Alonso ran "cold fuel" outside of the rules, and that the other teams didn't. Should he remain the title holder?

[markabilly]

I think that Max wanted to humiliate McLaren. It is childish, but in my opinion the appeal was childish as well. So I must admit that I am quite happy with FIA ruling.
No I think neither max nor bernie have any such interest

For them it is all about money. They support Ferrari when they think it is good for revenue. If it were bad for revenue, they would flush them in a second--ask MS about how he lost that second place in the WDC, when he bumped JV...too much bad stuff spoiling potential revenue.....

Bernie clearly wanted hamilton as WDC, and what bernie wants, Max usually gets for him, if convinced it is for good of sport (revenue) and bernie even explicitly said so, whining about the recluse FA and the even worst Kimi, who "hardly says a word", some two races before the end, and expressly claimed he campaigned long and hard to spare the Mac drivers any penalty.

The reason Bernie did not support the Mac appeal was he was afraid that would be one step too many, and hurt revenue from the fall-out of seeing one driver win on TV, live in front of millions, and the other driver take it away, deep in the dark tomb of some court hearing out of the public's view...........so what would be the point of watching TV, and as soon as people think that, there goes those billions, with fall out from those paying sponsors and advertizers......

[markabilly]

Ah, the most caustic of current threads continues!

So in essence what some people are saying is that if a team knows of a breach of rules that would affect race outcome, they should not push the issue?

?
Most certainly they should push the issue, if they are the team wronged by the result.

That is the choice of the team, if they feel wronged, then they SHOULD PROPERLY appeal the RACE RESULT. Mac did not appeal the race result.

If that is what they choose to do, then go for it, like someone with backbone, not like a thief in the night.

If they do not want the heat or bad PR, then they should just live with the result. In such a case they have made an honest, but tough, choice.

Mac wanted everyone to believe that they made an honest, tough, sportsman choice, but the truth was otherwise

[Bagwan]

Ah, the most caustic of current threads continues!

So in essence what some people are saying is that if a team knows of a breach of rules that would affect race outcome, they should not push the issue?

I'm personally glad that the issue didn't change WDC standings (see my sig as it's been since the start of the year), but on the same basis after being fined a huge amount of money for their wrongdoings, McLaren had every right to still push the issue on other wrongdoings.

Reverse the outcome and ask yourself if you would still be happy with the results. Hamilton wins the title, and afterwards it's found that both he and Alonso ran "cold fuel" outside of the rules, and that the other teams didn't. Should he remain the title holder?

How are we to know , since McLaren did not produce temperature readings for Lewis and Fernando , that if the letter of the law could have been applied in an appeal of the race results , they wouldn't have been disqualified as well , for the same reason ?

Were it me , that would be the first thing out on the table .
Here's my figures . Now , let's talk about BMW and Williams .

Of course they had the right to appeal , but they did so improperly , and with reportedly , 4 high end lawyers retained to execute the task , it is hard to understand why .

Those lawyers would have known the inconsistency of the FIA readings , and the looseness of the wording of the testing regulations . As would Ron .
They should know that a protest of the result was the action to take , rather than to protest against another team's lack of penalty .
As far as I know , the move is without precedent , which is what Lawyers are all about .
They are also interested in winning . Making such a seemingly silly move like this would do nothing for one's ego or reputation .


But , there was motivation , obviously , so we must look elsewhere .

Were they simply trying to add an air of losing the title on a technicality ?
Or , were they just doing doughnuts on the front lawn , trying to show that the deck was stacked against them ?

It sure didn't look like they were actually trying to win this in the court .

[Osella]

May I just pick out one amusing point from the FIA's full statement regarding the grounds for dismissing McLaren's appeal..

"LEAVES it to the appellant to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 190 of the International Sporting Code and Article 24 of the Rules of the International Court of Appeal."

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Nothing like kickin' em when they're down!

[ioan]

May I just pick out one amusing point from the FIA's full statement regarding the grounds for dismissing McLaren's appeal..

"LEAVES it to the appellant to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 190 of the International Sporting Code and Article 24 of the Rules of the International Court of Appeal."

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Nothing like kickin' em when they're down!

Max thought that this will make no difference on top of the $100 million fine! :laugh:

[F1boat]

May I just pick out one amusing point from the FIA's full statement regarding the grounds for dismissing McLaren's appeal..

"LEAVES it to the appellant to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 190 of the International Sporting Code and Article 24 of the Rules of the International Court of Appeal."

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Nothing like kickin' em when they're down!

I hate to admit it, my I am enjoying this.

[airshifter]

How are we to know , since McLaren did not produce temperature readings for Lewis and Fernando , that if the letter of the law could have been applied in an appeal of the race results , they wouldn't have been disqualified as well , for the same reason ?

Were it me , that would be the first thing out on the table .
Here's my figures . Now , let's talk about BMW and Williams .


They could well have been disqualified by the same rule, for the same reasons. But if they were looking for consistency in the enforcement of rules, or a precedent of some sort, the temps of the fuel in their cars wouldn't make any difference.



Of course they had the right to appeal , but they did so improperly , and with reportedly , 4 high end lawyers retained to execute the task , it is hard to understand why .

Those lawyers would have known the inconsistency of the FIA readings , and the looseness of the wording of the testing regulations . As would Ron .
They should know that a protest of the result was the action to take , rather than to protest against another team's lack of penalty .
As far as I know , the move is without precedent , which is what Lawyers are all about .
They are also interested in winning . Making such a seemingly silly move like this would do nothing for one's ego or reputation .


But , there was motivation , obviously , so we must look elsewhere .

Were they simply trying to add an air of losing the title on a technicality ?
Or , were they just doing doughnuts on the front lawn , trying to show that the deck was stacked against them ?

It sure didn't look like they were actually trying to win this in the court .

For the average or even wealthy person, hiring 4 lawyers is a huge step and financial burdern. For the budget Mclaren has, it's little if anything. They and most other large teams probably have lawyers on retainer that are used frequently.

I think they were, and still are, in a no win situation. No matter how they approached the issue they got bad PR. If they really had no intention of changing race results (which nobody in my opinion can say for certain their motivations) then not appealing the results was the right way to go.

I try to look at it in the view of future races. If you are Mclaren, and you assume you need every advantage on the race track you can get, you would want to know whether the fuel rules will be enforced or not. By the precedent set, cheating is allowed at least sometimes. They could have imposed a fine and waived it, and at least set a precedent. Or they could have waived any actions against BMW and Williams, yet clarified the rule and future penalties.


Instead they did what they seem best at doing. Nothing. They took something that should be a simple black and white rule that wouldn't require an attorney to understand, and set an example of going by whatever they feel like they want to do.



I'm neither condemning or defending Mclaren or the way they approached the issue. But in reality there seems to be too many things that may or may not be enforced, and often they are simple issues. If they aren't to be enforced, they should toss the rule. As it is now, they leave too much room so that they could in fact "stack the deck" when desired.

As an example, how many tires have you seen with no grooves left at all during pit stops?

[Easy Drifter]

Well at least thanks to McLaren the FIA can eat in the finest restuarants in Paris and all these members of the various appeal boards can fly 1st class. No more sitting with the plebes in Economy! :D

[Bagwan]

They could well have been disqualified by the same rule, for the same reasons. But if they were looking for consistency in the enforcement of rules, or a precedent of some sort, the temps of the fuel in their cars wouldn't make any difference.



For the average or even wealthy person, hiring 4 lawyers is a huge step and financial burdern. For the budget Mclaren has, it's little if anything. They and most other large teams probably have lawyers on retainer that are used frequently.

I think they were, and still are, in a no win situation. No matter how they approached the issue they got bad PR. If they really had no intention of changing race results (which nobody in my opinion can say for certain their motivations) then not appealing the results was the right way to go.

I try to look at it in the view of future races. If you are Mclaren, and you assume you need every advantage on the race track you can get, you would want to know whether the fuel rules will be enforced or not. By the precedent set, cheating is allowed at least sometimes. They could have imposed a fine and waived it, and at least set a precedent. Or they could have waived any actions against BMW and Williams, yet clarified the rule and future penalties.


Instead they did what they seem best at doing. Nothing. They took something that should be a simple black and white rule that wouldn't require an attorney to understand, and set an example of going by whatever they feel like they want to do.



I'm neither condemning or defending Mclaren or the way they approached the issue. But in reality there seems to be too many things that may or may not be enforced, and often they are simple issues. If they aren't to be enforced, they should toss the rule. As it is now, they leave too much room so that they could in fact "stack the deck" when desired.

As an example, how many tires have you seen with no grooves left at all during pit stops?


They did not appeal the race results as such , but appealing the race results was what they actively tried to do in a hearing that was not designed to provide that opportunity .
They tried a door which they and the high-priced lawyers should known was locked .

As has been said , there are better , and cheaper , ways to establish clarification of rules if one's intention is not to change a ruling in a previous race . The technical working group is in place for exactly that reason .

You and I can easily understand they didn't have a leg on which to stand , with rules as loose as in the fuel temperature section of the code . So , why bother at all , whether the right thing or not ?

So , we know they couldn't have believed they could win .

They stated they didn't want the title result changed , just a clarification .
But , we know they have asked for clarification before , as in moving floors , so we know they know how to do it .


To publicly bring up the question for the TWG would have achieved a clarification , and not cost them the price of an appeal .

The only logical explanation I see here is that Ron was trying to again cast his team in the role of the victim , showing the rules and the FIA as foolish and biassed .

It didn't work .


Grooves in tires are an issue for someone to protest about in future , it is to be sure , as , if we can have them run to the cord , that groove tends to suffer .
That particular issue will take either a question , which is less likely , or a protest from a team about another's results to sort out .

I know , it kinda dumb , but that's often how rules in sport are changed or tweaked to fit the day .
It was more an issue when there were 2 manufacturers anyway , but I would assume it's in everybody's arsenal as a last ditch , hope to beat the potentially resulting bad press gambit .

But , grooves are stupid anyway . I like them when they are all worn down to slicks , myself .

[Valve Bounce]

Hands up anybody who believes that McLaren hired four top lawyers for an appeal court hearing to seek clarification of the fuel temperature regulations.

[Hawkmoon]

Can somebody clear something up for me?

When, exactly, did it become known that the fuel in the BMWs and Williams was outside the regulations? Did McLaren know of this inside 30 minutes after the race finished? If it didn't become known until after that 30 minutes then a protest wouldn't have been allowed and McLaren would only have had the appeal as an option.

I'm not trying to excuse McLaren here. As Sam Michael pointed out, the TWG is the place for rule clarifications, not the appeal court.

[truefan72]

Good Lord, do you guys just want to assemble the lynch mob and head off to the Paragon Centre right now? While you're at it, why don't you bring along the media so that we can all watch the McLaren leadership being tarred and feathered prior to some good old-fashioned torture, followed by a few public hangings...
McLaren appealed because the race stewards decided that Williams and BMW violated the published fuel temperature rules, yet no punishment was assessed against them. I would have appealed in their situation, and the FIA ruling is, to put it bluntly, a large pile of steaming brown fertilizer. They rule that the appeal is inadmissible, after going to the expense of having everybody turn up to hear all the parties state their case?
This is not credible enforcement of rules and regulations. It makes the Keystone Cops look like geniuses.
McLaren had every right to appeal, and I have no sympathy for anybody who tries to claim otherwise. Just because they were found in breach of regulations on another matter does not require them to STFU on this matter.

:up:

[Valve Bounce]

Can somebody clear something up for me?

When, exactly, did it become known that the fuel in the BMWs and Williams was outside the regulations? Did McLaren know of this inside 30 minutes after the race finished? If it didn't become known until after that 30 minutes then a protest wouldn't have been allowed and McLaren would only have had the appeal as an option.

I'm not trying to excuse McLaren here. As Sam Michael pointed out, the TWG is the place for rule clarifications, not the appeal court.

The Stewards inquiry preceded the posting of the official results of the race, and McLaren had 30 minutes to lodge their protest after the posting of the official results.

[Valve Bounce]

Can somebody clear something up for me?

When, exactly, did it become known that the fuel in the BMWs and Williams was outside the regulations? Did McLaren know of this inside 30 minutes after the race finished? If it didn't become known until after that 30 minutes then a protest wouldn't have been allowed and McLaren would only have had the appeal as an option.

I'm not trying to excuse McLaren here. As Sam Michael pointed out, the TWG is the place for rule clarifications, not the appeal court.

Here's the reason:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64055

[Valve Bounce]

I think there appears to be some misconception of this appeal and that the FIA simply dodged the issue when the ruled McLaren's appeal inadmissable. The following makes for a very enlightening read, and the salient paragraphs are quoted below: http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=General&PO_ID=41314

"With regard to the fuel rigs, the sensors are not standard, as McLaren have continually claimed to the ICA. In fact the sensors are different between teams up and down the grid depending on when you ordered your fuel rig.

In fact some of them haven't been calibrated for seven years. They are not sealed in any way, they are not tamper-proof. So there is no control over them at all.

If you are going to use a sensor for regulatory purposes it's got to be sealed, tamper-proof and properly calibrated.

The calibration sheets for our rig don't even exist. We couldn't even find them. We went all the way back to the manufacturer Intertechnique and they said first of all that the sensor we were using was obsolete and that wasn't produced any more, and that they couldn't even find the calibration sheets for it.

It was never intended to be a regulatory device and Intertechnique have acknowledged that".

I supected all along that the temperatures taken in F1 would not have met the requirements of a NAATA approved Soils Laboratory for taking compaction density tests on a pipe backfill, let alone a multi-billion dollar enterprise such as F1.

Basically, had I used such uncalibrated devices for approving or rejecting Asphaltic Concrete (Bitumen to Poms), the Contractor would have easily and successfully made claims against all materials rejected.

[Hawkmoon]

The Stewards inquiry preceded the posting of the official results of the race, and McLaren had 30 minutes to lodge their protest after the posting of the official results.


Here's the reason:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64055

Thanks Valve. I can now go back to my McLaren bashing with a clear conscience. ;) :D

[PSfan]

I think there appears to be some misconception of this appeal and that the FIA simply dodged the issue when the ruled McLaren's appeal inadmissable. The following makes for a very enlightening read, and the salient paragraphs are quoted below: http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=General&PO_ID=41314

"With regard to the fuel rigs, the sensors are not standard, as McLaren have continually claimed to the ICA. In fact the sensors are different between teams up and down the grid depending on when you ordered your fuel rig.

In fact some of them haven't been calibrated for seven years. They are not sealed in any way, they are not tamper-proof. So there is no control over them at all.

If you are going to use a sensor for regulatory purposes it's got to be sealed, tamper-proof and properly calibrated.

The calibration sheets for our rig don't even exist. We couldn't even find them. We went all the way back to the manufacturer Intertechnique and they said first of all that the sensor we were using was obsolete and that wasn't produced any more, and that they couldn't even find the calibration sheets for it.

It was never intended to be a regulatory device and Intertechnique have acknowledged that".

I supected all along that the temperatures taken in F1 would not have met the requirements of a NAATA approved Soils Laboratory for taking compaction density tests on a pipe backfill, let alone a multi-billion dollar enterprise such as F1.

I too suspect that nobody in F1 has the equipment to meet the MTO requirements for taking compaction density tests on backfill to a pipe as required by the OPSS-501. However I don't believe they're is much need of a Nuclear Moisture and Density gauges around the paddock :p :

A lot off topic, but maybe this is why we don't get along Valve, I work for a contractor (MTO requires the contractor to check 100% their own compaction on highway jobs QC. Contract Administration is required to perform QA on at least 25% to make sure the contractor is being honest. ) You would more then likely work for either the MTO or the Contract administer which would probably put us against each other here :p :


Basically, had I used such uncalibrated devices for approving or rejecting Asphaltic Concrete (Bitumen to Poms), the Contractor would have easily and successfully made claims against all materials rejected.

Here's what I find interesting about this article... It suggests that the FIA depend on the constructor’s equipment for getting their Temp readings?!?!

I agree (of course I would cause I work for a contractor) If your equipment wasn't calibrated to contract specs, then any contractor can have your results thrown out. BUT how often would you have depended on the contractor’s equipment?

However, for example we are working on the same Job, I for the Contractor you, making sure we are doing the job to spec. I check the compaction next to the pipe, you see the numbers are too low and I still pass it claiming my gauge isn't working properly. Are you gonna use the same gauge to check my results? And also accept the low numbers based on my theory?

Obviously if it is as it’s suggested in that article, some off season changes should be that the teams use standardized fueling rigs with some means in which the FIA can use their own equipment for testing purposes.

Another change regarding fuel temps rules I would like to see changed is this ambient non-sense. Make it standard, the fuel in the rig must be between 23-27 at all tracks for example. (Guess that’s just too simple...)

And finally on a side note: while there has been much discussion on whether BMW and Williams gained an advantage on track do to a HP increase. The real reason the fuel temp rules are in place (or so I've read somewhere...) is because at colder temps, the fuel is denser therefore teams get more fuel into the car in less time during pit stops.

[Hawkmoon]

And finally on a side note: while there has been much discussion on whether BMW and Williams gained an advantage on track do to a HP increase. The real reason the fuel temp rules are in place (or so I've read somewhere...) is because at colder temps, the fuel is denser therefore teams get more fuel into the car in less time during pit stops.

It's also been largely ignored that Nakajima's Williams also recorded low fuel temps. So whatever advantage these low temperatures may have gained Williams it didn't allow Satoru's boy to beat Hamilton, now did it?

So maybe Hamilton was beaten by Heidfeld, Kubica and Rosberg simply because they were fast enough to stay ahead of him when he was making his comeback from 18th and Nakajima wasn't?

[Valve Bounce]

As I have said previously, I normally do not respond to PSfan's posts. But he does have a point here.
I respect the way they test and approve in Canada, and maybe they have the same arrangements here in Oz nowadsys - I don't know. In my day, I tested for a Government organisation, and I calibrated my instruments through an independent organisation called NAATA which then acredited our labs.

I have already posted several posts concerning temperature readings in phase #1 of this thread.

To clarify my remarks concerning compaction backfill, we did not use nuclear densometers here at the time for several technical reasons which I won't go into now. But we did have to do moisture contents very accurately via drying the samples in an acredited oven, and where temperatures were strictly controlled, so that we could compare the field densities with a laboratory standard (or Modified) Compaction.

Let me put it this way, if you are going to measure temperatures with uncalibrated thermometers, then you will get a range of errors in your readings between the different thermometers.

The only way to be consistant is recalibration, which is carried out as a matter of routine.

The thought of sensors not re-calibrated for a number of years, being flown around the world, and some being obsolete and with no calibration procedures available is a recipe for disaster.

It was never proven with proper calibrated instruments that BMW nor Williams ran their fuel below what was specified. The fact that both these teams were willing to make their own readings available to the Appeals Court and McLaren refused says it all.

[wmcot]

Another change regarding fuel temps rules I would like to see changed is this ambient non-sense. Make it standard, the fuel in the rig must be between 23-27 at all tracks for example. (Guess that’s just too simple...)


Yep. The FIA have a requirement - never write a one sentence rule when multiple paragraphs of technical jargon will do! ;)

[SGWilko]

And finally on a side note: while there has been much discussion on whether BMW and Williams gained an advantage on track do to a HP increase. The real reason the fuel temp rules are in place (or so I've read somewhere...) is because at colder temps, the fuel is denser therefore teams get more fuel into the car in less time during pit stops.

I thought they put a stop to chilling the fuel in the aftermath of the Ferrari crash (GB) at Tamburello in 1989.

[ArrowsFA1]

How are we to know , since McLaren did not produce temperature readings for Lewis and Fernando , that if the letter of the law could have been applied in an appeal of the race results , they wouldn't have been disqualified as well , for the same reason ?

Were it me , that would be the first thing out on the table .
Here's my figures . Now , let's talk about BMW and Williams.
May I ask why McLaren's fuel temp is at issue? The FIA's Technical Delegate Jo Bauer found fault with the BMW & Williams cars. As far as I know no others were either examined or if they were no fault was found, but I may very well be incorrect on that. Therefore, the cars that arguably breached regulations were those of BMW & Williams and no others.

Do the FIA test all cars, or do they examine points finishers only, or do they check cars at random?

[Hawkmoon]

May I ask why McLaren's fuel temp is at issue? The FIA's Technical Delegate Jo Bauer found fault with the BMW & Williams cars. As far as I know no others were either examined or if they were no fault was found, but I may very well be incorrect on that. Therefore, the cars that arguably breached regulations were those of BMW & Williams and no others.

Do the FIA test all cars, or do they examine points finishers only, or do they check cars at random?

It's a good question Arrows. Maybe McLaren's own fuel temps were different than those taken by Bauer and they didn't want to hurt their case? Maybe it's just McLaren being ultra secretive as is their wont. Who knows? But one things for sure. If McLaren's fuel temps would have helped their case they almost certainly would have submitted them, just as Ferrari did because it helped BMW and Williams, and thus Ferrari themselves.

[ArrowsFA1]

But one things for sure. If McLaren's fuel temps would have helped their case they almost certainly would have submitted them, just as Ferrari did because it helped BMW and Williams, and thus Ferrari themselves.
But my question is why are any other teams' fuel temps relevant? Would it have been because it helped clarify a very muddy regulation?

In any case where there is a possible breach of regulations do the FIA always examine the rest of the field for comparison purposes, and in order to help them come to a decision?

As McLaren's appeal was ruled (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64055) "inadmissible on account of the lack of direct interest in the decision under appeal", why would Ferrari's fuel temps be admissable or even relevant?

[Valve Bounce]

Thanks Hawk - saved me saying the same thing. Basically, the temperatures provided by bothBMW and Williams as well as Ferrari showed that none of these temps were outside specs. However, when asked to show theirs, McLaren refused. While their temps are not an issue, they refused to show them possibly because they were the same as the others, and so there was no case to answer. That, of course, is only my cynical opinion.

[ArrowsFA1]

While their temps are not an issue...
And that's my point. Weren't the only fuel temps relevant to the hearing those of the BMW & Williams cars?

Of course, what is relevant is that the FIA judged the appeal inadmissable so any discussion around the fuel temp issue will have to remain unresolved, at least until the FIA clarify the regs.

[555-04Q2]

And that's my point. Weren't the only fuel temps relevant to the hearing those of the BMW & Williams cars?

Of course, what is relevant is that the FIA judged the appeal inadmissable so any discussion around the fuel temp issue will have to remain unresolved, at least until the FIA clarify the regs.

Just another FIA cover-up me thinks :(

[ioan]

But my question is why are any other teams' fuel temps relevant?

Because maybe that would made it clear that the FIA reading of the temperatures was wrong. And I think that would be more than enough.

[ArrowsFA1]

Because maybe that would made it clear that the FIA reading of the temperatures was wrong. And I think that would be more than enough.
There's a number of issues there though ioan:

1) McLaren's appeal was ruled inadmissable "on account of the lack of direct interest in the decision under appeal". Therefore, in any appeal (had it happened) the temperature of fuel from cars other than BMW or Williams would also be inadmissable would it not?

2) That brings me back to one of my original questions - Do the FIA test all cars, or do they examine points finishers only, or do they check cars at random? If they check all the cars then the FIA would have had all the info they needed for comparison purposes. If not then how could the FIA verify the accuracy of the data being offered, particularly if it came from any team which had a direct interest in the outcome of the hearing?

3) If the FIA seek data of any kind from teams not involved in a case like this for comparison purposes then why was this not done in, for example, the Honda fuel tank case, or any other possible breach of the regs you care to mention?

[markabilly]

There's a number of issues there though ioan:

1) McLaren's appeal was ruled inadmissable "on account of the lack of direct interest in the decision under appeal". Therefore, in any appeal (had it happened) the temperature of fuel from cars other than BMW or Williams would also be inadmissable would it not?

2) That brings me back to one of my original questions - Do the FIA test all cars, or do they examine points finishers only, or do they check cars at random? If they check all the cars then the FIA would have had all the info they needed for comparison purposes. If not then how could the FIA verify the accuracy of the data being offered, particularly if it came from any team which had a direct interest in the outcome of the hearing?

3) If the FIA seek data of any kind from teams not involved in a case like this for comparison purposes then why was this not done in, for example, the Honda fuel tank case, or any other possible breach of the regs you care to mention?

The answers to your questions simply are more evidence in addition to the evidence I cited earlier of dishonesty of a cowardly nature.

The latter two are matters should be handled as the fexible floors, and this appeal was unnecessary---Further, Mc did not appeal the race results, said they did not appeal the race results and their lawyer tried to say to the court of appeals, they should treat the matter as they did. Keep saying that somehow the FIA did some hiding, and maybe everyone will eventually believe it. One of the tricks of any good propaganda minister!!!! Or a lawyer....

The reg references to the temp "on board"--which confused me early on, until I realized that the stewards can not or do not measure the temp "on board" but as it happens, apparently many teams do measure the temp in the injection rails, where the fuel temp matters the most, as well as elsewhere, with probably the usual uncanny accuracy of the latest and best of equipment.

However the FIA measures the temp as it goes in from the rigs as a substitute, assuming that is the same as "on board temp.".

Most teenagers who can pass basic science and logic classes could tell you what is wrong with that assumption

Further, as pointed out in the article above, the rigs have various temp devices and so forth, based on date of purchase and lack continual, proper calibration, so even that measurement can not be said to be accurate.

But that is NOT the point. They were claiming this lower temp provided a performance enhancement compared to other teams. Mac was challenging the temp of other cars "on board temp" and the response was that this temp, according to telemetry was NOT outside the acceptable range.



If there was a comparative perfomance enhancement that gave BMW and Williams an unfair competive advantage, as alleged by their own lawyer at the hearing, then what is the temp of BMW and all "the other teams" is the relevant and only basic question


If Mac had presented their telemetry, we might well have discovered that it was about the same or the lowest fuel temp in the injection rails was the MAC temp, and I wonder......how much lower?????What were they afraid of???

Has Mac figured out a way to superchill the fuel in the injection rail? A possible secret to success?

Or is it because the temp readings would have all been very close, so there was no comparative "power enhancement" as claimed by the Mac lawyer in comparision to Mac or to any other team such as Ferrrari?

In any event, the insiders such as BMW and Williams, and even Ferrari, clearly know that Mac was playing games, lawyer games of distorting the truth to twist it to their own benefit.

RD was the one running at the mouth about how Mac was a team of intergrity when the spygate stuff leaked out, and if any logical objective person believed that back then, then they no longer have any grounds to believe that now.

Zero.
Credibility is toast.

" Mac's Team of Intergrity" is now burned totally beyond recognition by their own actions.

Having briefly met and talked with Bruce McLaren at Riverside as a youngster, and followed his career until his tragic accident, he deserves better than to have his name associated with such behavior out of Mac this season.

They should re-name the team to McLiar, and paint a yellow streak right down the middle...........

[airshifter]

There's a number of issues there though ioan:

1) McLaren's appeal was ruled inadmissable "on account of the lack of direct interest in the decision under appeal". Therefore, in any appeal (had it happened) the temperature of fuel from cars other than BMW or Williams would also be inadmissable would it not?

2) That brings me back to one of my original questions - Do the FIA test all cars, or do they examine points finishers only, or do they check cars at random? If they check all the cars then the FIA would have had all the info they needed for comparison purposes. If not then how could the FIA verify the accuracy of the data being offered, particularly if it came from any team which had a direct interest in the outcome of the hearing?

3) If the FIA seek data of any kind from teams not involved in a case like this for comparison purposes then why was this not done in, for example, the Honda fuel tank case, or any other possible breach of the regs you care to mention?


This mostly shares my train of thought. The fuel temps of the cars not in question at first should have never been in question unless they checked the temp of the fuel for all teams.

I also think Bagwan makes some very valid points. I don't think Mclaren thought that even with lawyers they could change the standings, nor so I think the FIA really cared about the fuel temps of the Mclaren. It was almost as if they went out of their way to sling mud at each other in attempts to discredit.



I can't see why the temp of the Mclaren team was at all included, and can't blame them for not sharing it if not required. If they were well above required, they now know they can push it closer. If they were already close or below the limit they don't want competing teams to know that they don't have some room to play with.

[ioan]

This mostly shares my train of thought. The fuel temps of the cars not in question at first should have never been in question unless they checked the temp of the fuel for all teams.

If, the FIA doesn't measure the temperature of the fuel in the rigs for all the cars, I fail to see on what basis they could decide to punish only the teams for which the temperatures were measured.

[Valve Bounce]

And that's my point. Weren't the only fuel temps relevant to the hearing those of the BMW & Williams cars?

Of course, what is relevant is that the FIA judged the appeal inadmissable so any discussion around the fuel temp issue will have to remain unresolved, at least until the FIA clarify the regs.

Thanks for quoting part of the sentence, but just to make sure you didn't miss the rest of it, here's the whole sentence:
While their temps are not an issue, they refused to show them possibly because they were the same as the others, and so there was no case to answer. That, of course, is only my cynical opinion.

[Valve Bounce]

Can I please just stress that the temperatures taken were by sensors that were not re-calibrated for years, and their accuracy was questionable at best. The protocols for temperature measurements and comparisons were not clear. I posted all this above but it seems to have escaped some who keep carping about the cars which broke the rules. They didn't break any rules because there were no satisfactory temperture measurements. Is this so difficult to understand?

[PSfan]

And that's my point. Weren't the only fuel temps relevant to the hearing those of the BMW & Williams cars?

Of course, what is relevant is that the FIA judged the appeal inadmissable so any discussion around the fuel temp issue will have to remain unresolved, at least until the FIA clarify the regs.


Well my theory as to Ferrari and MacLeran being asked for temp @ the rail was so they could determine if Williams and BMW where still benefiting from a cooler fuel at the engine.

FIA having known roughly the temps of the fuel at the rigs, had the Williams and BMW's Fuel still been consistantly cooler (even if within the regs) on the rails, then they would have indeed been been getting a performance advantage on track from it.

[ioan]

Can I please just stress that the temperatures taken were by sensors that were not re-calibrated for years, and their accuracy was questionable at best. The protocols for temperature measurements and comparisons were not clear. I posted all this above but it seems to have escaped some who keep carping about the cars which broke the rules. They didn't break any rules because there were no satisfactory temperture measurements. Is this so difficult to understand?

Not at all, not all Valve. In fact it is very very clearly stated.
The only thing missing is someone's will to understand it! ;)

[airshifter]

Can I please just stress that the temperatures taken were by sensors that were not re-calibrated for years, and their accuracy was questionable at best. The protocols for temperature measurements and comparisons were not clear. I posted all this above but it seems to have escaped some who keep carping about the cars which broke the rules. They didn't break any rules because there were no satisfactory temperture measurements. Is this so difficult to understand?

Valve Bounce,

I don't think anyone is missing that point at all. But if it's already understood that the testing equipment was not accurate, why would they desire the innacurate reading of the Mclaren fuel?

I don't think for a second they should punish any team with such poor administration and lack of proper process in checking for accurate temps with up to date and calibrated equipment. But in essence they have no proven they have a rule with no ability to enforce it.

So why is it a rule, or why haven't they done something to make it a rule they can enforce?

[Valve Bounce]

Valve Bounce,

I don't think anyone is missing that point at all. But if it's already understood that the testing equipment was not accurate, why would they desire the innacurate reading of the Mclaren fuel?

I don't think for a second they should punish any team with such poor administration and lack of proper process in checking for accurate temps with up to date and calibrated equipment. But in essence they have no proven they have a rule with no ability to enforce it.

So why is it a rule, or why haven't they done something to make it a rule they can enforce?


I think the three other teams present at the appeal tabled their readings to show that they did not break the rules. McLaren declined to table theirs when asked. I would suspect that they asked McLaren to table their readings just to show that the readings were all approximately the same. However, had McLaren tabled readings which were the same, their case would have had no foundation from that moment.

The other reason, of course, may have shown that the McLaren temperatures showed a greater difference frim the rigs, which would have done their case even less good.

So why havn't they done something to make the rules enforceable? Good question. They would need to specifify independent re-calibrations for the sensors regularly, specify sensors of a certain standard and accuracy for a start.