schumisucks

Fia Backs Parr's 'illegal Ferrari' Claims

14 posts in this topic

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news...420175905.shtml

Court of Appeal findings published:

<<<FIA backs Parr's 'illegal Ferrari' claims>>>

The FIA on Monday backed Adam Parr's claim that Ferrari said it fielded technically illegal cars in Formula One.

A spat broke out in Shanghai between the Italian team and Parr, who is the Williams team's chief executive.

Ferrari team boss Stefano Domenicali, backed by Renault's Flavio Briatore, hit out at Parr after comments attributed to him suggested Ferrari had used illegal cars in the past.

But on Monday, the FIA said Ferrari did indeed admit to committing "a technical violation" of the technical regulations in the past during the Court of Appeal hearing last Tuesday.

"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 (technical regulations) which had been tolerated," the Court of Appeal finding said.

The FIA published the court's 20-page findings in full on Monday.

In the document, the court - which found in favour of the diffuser teams Brawn, Toyota and Williams - acknowledged the loophole that led to the saga.

Amazingly, the diffuser teams and their rivals had argued at length about whether holes in the controversial designs were actually holes.

"The (diffuser teams) and the FIA submit that, while there may be spaces between different surfaces, the surfaces themselves do not have holes in them.

They contend that the spaces between different surfaces are not holes within the very specific meaning of" article 3.12.5.

The FIA also denied Red Bull's claim that the governing body turned down its clarification in January 2007 about designing a similar concept.

Monday's document reads: "The questions put to (the FIA) in previous cases were different and answered correctly and in a manner consistent with its present position."

The contesting teams had also argued that if the design of 'double-decker' diffusers were considered legal, the seven remaining teams would have no choice but to spend great amounts of money redesigning their own diffusers, creating a situation contrary to the current efforts to reduce costs in F1.

The FIA separated the concepts by stating that "the possibility of teams not presently using the Contested Design Concept incurring future development costs is not a factor relevant to the legal assessment of whether the Contested Decisions comply with the (technical regulations) or not."

D.B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused. I thought the argument by Williams was: if what Ferrari say is true about our car, then their cars have been illegal for the past x many years too. Basically it was just a way of turning the arguments by other teams on them.

The court ruled that whatever they were talking about (vertices, surfaces, whatever) weren't illegal in this case.

My conclusion: The vertices/whatever were therefore never illegal. If the ruling had been that Brawn and co had broken the rules, then perhaps Ferrari had illegal cars in the past. That didn't happen, so all cars were legal, at least in this area.

:eusa_think:

Of course, this is all just a load of BS anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. That's my conclusion too but Ferrari don't want to admit that. So Ferrari's response to Parr's claims seems to have been to admit to breaking the rules in the past. They probably claimed to be unaware at the time that they were breaking them, or maybe that they had a precedent to break it in the other cases but not for the diffusers. Still, given my interest in cheating in F1, it's fun that they admitted that in their own view they had won championships with illegal cars.

The Court's account is on autosport. I might read it sometime but it sounds too tedious even for me tonight to read an intellectual squabble about whether a hole is a hole or not (it isn't).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im confused....what the hell is a hole again...I mean I was walking down the street the other day and fell into a vertical transition....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news...420175905.shtml

Court of Appeal findings published:

<<<FIA backs Parr's 'illegal Ferrari' claims>>>

The FIA on Monday backed Adam Parr's claim that Ferrari said it fielded technically illegal cars in Formula One.

A spat broke out in Shanghai between the Italian team and Parr, who is the Williams team's chief executive.

Ferrari team boss Stefano Domenicali, backed by Renault's Flavio Briatore, hit out at Parr after comments attributed to him suggested Ferrari had used illegal cars in the past.

But on Monday, the FIA said Ferrari did indeed admit to committing "a technical violation" of the technical regulations in the past during the Court of Appeal hearing last Tuesday.

"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 (technical regulations) which had been tolerated," the Court of Appeal finding said.

The FIA published the court's 20-page findings in full on Monday.

In the document, the court - which found in favour of the diffuser teams Brawn, Toyota and Williams - acknowledged the loophole that led to the saga.

Amazingly, the diffuser teams and their rivals had argued at length about whether holes in the controversial designs were actually holes.

"The (diffuser teams) and the FIA submit that, while there may be spaces between different surfaces, the surfaces themselves do not have holes in them.

They contend that the spaces between different surfaces are not holes within the very specific meaning of" article 3.12.5.

The FIA also denied Red Bull's claim that the governing body turned down its clarification in January 2007 about designing a similar concept.

Monday's document reads: "The questions put to (the FIA) in previous cases were different and answered correctly and in a manner consistent with its present position."

The contesting teams had also argued that if the design of 'double-decker' diffusers were considered legal, the seven remaining teams would have no choice but to spend great amounts of money redesigning their own diffusers, creating a situation contrary to the current efforts to reduce costs in F1.

The FIA separated the concepts by stating that "the possibility of teams not presently using the Contested Design Concept incurring future development costs is not a factor relevant to the legal assessment of whether the Contested Decisions comply with the (technical regulations) or not."

D.B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand is that, FIA are just reminding Ferrari that they like many teams in the past have broken a rule here and there and got away with it, FIA may have spared them for the sake of F1 itself.

Nothing fishy here for a guy who understand the way world and politics work. This is just a cheap press caption meant to fool fans.

Hey...I am not a Ferrari fan though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im confused....what the hell is a hole again...I mean I was walking down the street the other day and fell into a vertical transition....

HA!

My interpretation is that....

Let's say a hole is punched/drilled/milled into a continuous surface, then that's a hole.

1. Imagine building a shoe box, you've got all the sides to assemble......... lay the bottom down, then fix one long side to it at 90 degrees, now do the same with the other long side.

2. Now slide one end piece down at one end, in between the two long sides, BUT don't let it touch the bottom piece by a an inch or so - now glue it into position.

3. What you have is a gap formed during assembly, a gap that can't be seen when viewed from looking up the missus's skirt directly below.

4. Throw the other sides of the box away.

I'm probably wrong, but I enjoyed the waffle :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A floorless explanation sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you can stick your finger in it, it is a hole.

I believe Horner said this at the last grand Prix?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe Horner said this at the last grand Prix?

No - that was just Horny.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now