Diffuser Saga Over Then!!!!

[Kati 0]

im lazy to read whats it, but if everyone agrees kati agrees too ^^

[HandyNZL 1]

im lazy to read whats it, but if everyone agrees kati agrees too ^^

They were discussing the size of Vettels, erm, under carriage being very small.....

[Jean Todt 4]

They were discussing the size of Vettels, erm, under carriage being very small.....

and its very handy too.

[Kati 0]

They were discussing the size of Vettels, erm, under carriage being very small.....

you should read what i said on the 'who the hell is everybody now' thread on the cafe

[HandyNZL 1]

Yes I saw that....but none of us believe you

[Medilloni 6]

Well, it's over now, FIA publish full report of appeal, and makes perfect sense too

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74666 (It's a big read... hence the link only)

[HandyNZL 1]

Well, it's over now, FIA publish full report of appeal, and makes perfect sense too

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74666 (It's a big read... hence the link only)

Too many words for me....haha...got bored....the plot is rather slow paced

[Quiet One 15]

Too many words for me....haha...got bored....the plot is rather slow paced

I read it thouroughly and understood it with no problems.

It's about holes.

[HandyNZL 1]

Cheaters!!!!

57. At the hearing, Ferrari acknowledged that multiple vertical transitions had been used by many teams in the past, including Ferrari itself, and argued that all such prior uses (including its own) had constituted a technical violation of the TR which had been tolerated. However, it argued that where multiple transitions had been used at the front of the car, rather than the rear, this constituted only a minor breach which could have been easily remedied, had it been necessary to do so, without a significant detriment to performance. Ferrari contends that multiple vertical transitions at the rear of the car have not been seen before and constitute a more serious violation which should not be tolerated.

[HandyNZL 1]

I read it thouroughly and understood it with no problems.

It's about holes.

I see a hole in your in your findings, large enough for a small mouse or other little creature could run through!

[HandyNZL 1]

Guess this is the balls of it then:

66. However, the Court finds that the first sentence of Art. 3.12.5 TR does not state that it is necessary to view the reference plane, step plane and the transition as one single surface. Therefore, as long as each individual step plane, reference plane, and transition fulfils the criteria set out under Art. 3.12.5. TR (namely

[HandyNZL 1]

This is still a little fishy - Red Bull and renault should release what they submitted to clear it all up...

Sixth Plea – The Decision of the Stewards is Inconsistent with Previous

Statements Rendered by the FIA

a) Arguments of the parties

82. Renault alleges that the FIA has previously rendered opinions to it, stating that designs similar to those used by the Contested Design Teams in the Contested Design Concept were contrary to the TR.

83. Red Bull submits that it asked the FIA in January 2007 to clarify its position as regards any discontinuity in the reference plane, and the response from the FIA clearly stated that such a discontinuity would be illegal.

84. The FIA argues that in no previous statement did it deal with the Contested Design Concept. The questions put to it in previous cases were different and answered correctly and in a manner consistent with its present position.

Findings of the Court

85. The Court observes that opinions of the Technical Department, while performing a vital role, are advisory in nature and are not Technical Regulations. Teams are obliged to comply with the TR as written. It is for the Stewards, and ultimately this Court, to offer binding interpretations of the TR. Even if the Contested Decisions were inconsistent with any opinion of the FIA Technical Department (which has not been established), this would not give rise to the invalidity of the Contested Decisions. The Court therefore denies the Sixth Plea.

The highlighted bit sounds like a bit of a cop out.....nonetheless

[parabs 0]

This is still a little fishy - Red Bull and renault should release what they submitted to clear it all up...

...

For certain they should release what they submitted. If it was within the limits suggested by the TR, then everyone from the teams to the fans should be upset with this years version of the circus, however, the fact that neither seem excited to release what they submitted, making me think that they submitted designs that are in fact, illegal.

[Medilloni 6]

For certain they should release what they submitted. If it was within the limits suggested by the TR, then everyone from the teams to the fans should be upset with this years version of the circus, however, the fact that neither seem excited to release what they submitted, making me think that they submitted designs that are in fact, illegal.

I'd like them to do that to Parabs. Glad to see the issue cleared up about Red Bull (and the others?) saying they subitted a 'similar' design which they were told was illegal:

83. Red Bull submits that it asked the FIA in January 2007 to clarify its position as regards any discontinuity in the reference plane, and the response from the FIA clearly stated that such a discontinuity would be illegal.

84. The FIA argues that in no previous statement did it deal with the Contested Design Concept. The questions put to it in previous cases were different and answered correctly and in a manner consistent with its present position.

So it wasn't the same design as the DD3, they obviously asked the wrong questions - and again, the ruling does refer to the FIA (and their stewards) not being at liberty to provide answers that could give away the design of the legal DD's.

Interesting to see the confusion of stepped planes at the front and the rear (without clarifying the differences clearly imo), and the use of the plural. Long live interpretation!

Sheesh, I love this season

[yurp 0]

Well, it's over now, FIA publish full report of appeal, and makes perfect sense too

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74666 (It's a big read... hence the link only)

Cheers Meds - nothing too surprising there, but worth the read.

[monza gorilla 1]

I'd like them to do that to Parabs. Glad to see the issue cleared up about Red Bull (and the others?) saying they subitted a 'similar' design which they were told was illegal:

So it wasn't the same design as the DD3, they obviously asked the wrong questions - and again, the ruling does refer to the FIA (and their stewards) not being at liberty to provide answers that could give away the design of the legal DD's.

I do so love it when I'm right. I'd forgotten what it was like.

[Medilloni 6]

I do so love it when I'm right. I'd forgotten what it was like.

Arf

The whole episode (whole, hole?), and the way words and interpretation are played out reminds me of the 'no' game - as in, Max Muesli will deny all spanking realated Q's....

Reporter: Were you pretending to be a naughty German WW2 soldier in a POW camp, dude?

Max: No.

Reporter: Did you pretend to pick nits or winnets off a pretend nekid prisoner?

Max: No.

Reporter: Do you mind if I flower this interview up and stick it in TNOTW?

Max: No.

[The Rumble Strip 0]

Is it ok that all previous Ferrari's were not legal then.

[HandyNZL 1]

Is it ok that all previous Ferrari's were not legal then.

Yes.

Why?

'cause red is a purdy colour....

[The Rumble Strip 0]

I meant in theory, could other teams now appeal against them and rewrite history.

[HandyNZL 1]

In theory, yes.

In reality, it would be so expensive, and even if you could overturn the occassional WDC or two...it would just make a farce of the sport...so why do it?

[The Rumble Strip 0]

Who knows what these teams would do it for

[Rainmaster 7]

I meant in theory, could other teams now appeal against them and rewrite history.

No, I'm pretty sure they would have to have protested the designs at the time. If you don't protest at the time you think something is illegal the result can't be changed. I think.

[The Rumble Strip 0]

Granted, that makes sense.

[HandyNZL 1]

Granted, that makes sense.

But this is F1 - it's not supposed to make sense anymore!