To All Legitimate F1 Fans

[J_Newtown_V 0]

Dear F1 Fans,

My name is Brian, I have been a legitimate f1 fan for more than 15 years.

The annoucement made by Ferrari officials, following the Malaysian Grand Prix, I find disgraceful. Let me summarize:

Since race #1 in Bahrain, it was known throughout the paddocks from interanal sources, that Ferrari was using a "illegal" set of front/rear wings. In Bahrain, this allowed Michael Schummacher to get a valuable 2nd position. I don't really trust 'internal sources' but when it was leaked in an interview published in Montreal that the internal source was actually Pat Symonds of Renault F1, my head was cleared of all doubts. Thus, Ferrari today acknowledged having used a technical peace of their car which violated a specific FIA 2006 Rule. I believe and I am sure many of you do, that if NO SANCTIONS are imposed, it will only show that Ferrari CAN and DOES get away with anything. A petition will be filled on the web from Spain and another should be filled in Canada as of March 21st. I thus demand taht those of you who feel the same make your voices heard, so that the ILLEGITAMITE points gained by Ferrari be taken away from them, given to other teams who DO NOT cheat.

Always Working For A Legitimate Sport Brian

[Senna 0]

Brian

Oh, that reminds me, I

[Max Mosley 2]

Oh dear! Sorry to hear that Senna. Top quality programming has passed you by tonight.

A million welcomes Brian!

[AutoRacer5 0]

All I'm saying is that if Michelin's tires were legal, why did they change them so fast after Hungary in 2003?

[cavallino 2]

The rear wings of other teams, INCLUDING RENAULT were also under investigation. The problem is Ferrari cleared all the tests prescribed by the FIA, they agreed to change their wings for the next race and there was no protest. Its not as if the wings of other teams don't flex visibly if you have looked at other videos carefully.

In any case its not that Ferrari are clearly vilating a rule, they were merely taking advantage of a rule not clearly defined. The other teams have asked for a clarification on the rules, which I am sure will shortly be issued by the FIA.

You smell of hypocrisy..

[rodders47 2]

Ferrari , as always, smell of CHEATING or at the very least STRETCHING the rules to the limit

[cavallino 2]

Everyone stretches rules to the limit

Look at this

http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/3258/animation11lv.gif

[nojvnof1 0]

It's all about stretching the elastic, the one who can stretch it the most without breaking it will win, but are they (all the teams in question, not just Ferrari) stretching it within the rules?

[Wez 0]

It's all about stretching the elastic, the one who can stretch it the most without breaking it will win.

Yeah, thats it... exept BAR last season... They used about 25 elastics!

[cavallino 2]

The rules are funny. They prescribed tests which all the teams pass. But they also say that there should be no movable aero devices and the FIA can prescribe new tests for that anytime. Which they probably will soon, until then things are sort of 'legal'.

[nojvnof1 0]

Yeah, thats it... exept BAR last season... They used about 25 elastics!

[Sato 0]

Ferrari were sneaky in the way they got around it to my understanding.

Didn't they have some system, where it would only flex when a certain part on the wings was moved, which would only happen when accelerating to high speeds, and then fix itself under braking?

So the FIA tested it with weights simulating downforce, but since it didn't effect the part that made it all work, they didn't find it, and passed it....

Atleast thats something I've heard.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Yeah, thats it... exept BAR last season... They used about 25 elastics!

This is quite funny, but dead wrong. BAR WAS'NT GUILTY OF ANYTHING WRONG mate. It was a interpretation of a rule that was as vague as... It all had to to with the weight of the car, with a supposely "secret hidden reservoir" tank". But all the cars have this hidden tank, or most of them, it was not even seen as hidden by the FIA officials who inspected the cars, from day one! FIA twisted the rule saying the car was underweight, but refused to drain the fuel from this reservoir tank which would have added up to the desired weight of an F1 car after a race.

ok, so i explained this in laymans terms. Fact is, there was another theory as to why the FIA singled BAR out. Bar is part of the GPMA, and tensions were quite high at that stage (we're talking b4 the USA debacle). The theory is that the FIA fired a warning shot to all the GPMA partners, wanting to show them who's boss. They say every opinion has a fool attached to it, mine must certainly have one.

[cavallino 2]

It was obivous

The car has to be above a minimum weight without any fuel in it. The BAR wasnt.

[Wez 0]

It was obivous

The car has to be above a minimum weight without any fuel in it. The BAR wasnt.

Indeed

[funkejay 0]

Everyone stretches rules to the limit

Look at this

http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/3258/animation11lv.gif

Cav what you're showing is different. All objects, irrespective of size, design, or shape, will deform somewhat under load, as nothing has absoute tensile strength. But Ferrari specifically designed their system to allow for slippage, and take advantage of that flexing. The inside leading edge of the top element of their two piece front wing is connected to the nose cone at a single point by a dowel in a small hole. This dowel is not fastened to the nose, but is allowed to float in and out of this hole, thereby taking maximum advantage of this slippage by offering no resistance to the tendancy of the wing element to flatten out under load. Had the wing been fastened to the nose, it would have greatly reduced the ability of the wing to deform by maximizing the tensile forces on the wing, thereby increasing its torsional rigidity and reducing flex.

McLaren's wing in the .gif you show is flexing across a lateral axis, and not a longitudinal one (at least the graphic you offer doesn't indicate that). That means that although it is not occupying the exact same space at speed that it does at rest, it should at least offer a much more consistent and constant profile at speed (thereby increasing drag on an equally consistent level at various speeds - with all other things being equal).

Ferrari's system however is designed not only to flex laterally, but also longituninally (front to back), so as to flatten out the profile of the wing - to sort of 'lay down' under the greater aerodynamic pressures at higher speeds, therby offering a variable profile which provides increased downforce at slower speeds, while reducing drag at higher speeds when it flexes downward and flattens out.

While the FIA's tests may not be able to detect it, this is precisely the type of movement the FIA is attempting to prevent when it prohibited movable aerodynamic devices.

[cavallino 2]

Indeed, but Ferrari have merely carried the loophole to the next level, they are channeling the flexing to their advantage. The flexing's been there for ages as the autosport report I quoted points out (other thread I think)

This has interesting parellals to michelingate 2003 where Ferrari were accused of being unsporting for bringing up the fact that tyres changed their shape during the race to give an unfari advantage.

[ben_3001 0]

ARTICLE 3: BODYWORK AND DIMENSIONS

3.15 Aerodynamic influence:

With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:

- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.

- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).

- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.

No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

The rules have been clearly broken for the front wing and are very ambigously stretched for the rear one. Limit I wouldn't care about the rear one, but the front wing is ILLEGAL. Don't tell me Ferrari didn't know what they were doing. BAR got sanctionned for breaking the rules, then Ferrari should as well.

Two race penalty and points revoked for the last GP or all GP that it has participated with said illegal part is the only way I see that would be just.

[dribbler 6]

Dear F1 Fans,

My name is Brian, I have been a legitimate f1 fan for more than 15 years.

The annoucement made by Ferrari officials, following the Malaysian Grand Prix, I find disgraceful. Let me summarize:

Since race #1 in Bahrain, it was known throughout the paddocks from interanal sources, that Ferrari was using a "illegal" set of front/rear wings. In Bahrain, this allowed Michael Schummacher to get a valuable 2nd position. I don't really trust 'internal sources' but when it was leaked in an interview published in Montreal that the internal source was actually Pat Symonds of Renault F1, my head was cleared of all doubts. Thus, Ferrari today acknowledged having used a technical peace of their car which violated a specific FIA 2006 Rule. I believe and I am sure many of you do, that if NO SANCTIONS are imposed, it will only show that Ferrari CAN and DOES get away with anything. A petition will be filled on the web from Spain and another should be filled in Canada as of March 21st. I thus demand taht those of you who feel the same make your voices heard, so that the ILLEGITAMITE points gained by Ferrari be taken away from them, given to other teams who DO NOT cheat.

Always Working For A Legitimate Sport Brian

Brian you are such a freedom fighter, well done.

Now, if you find it so difficult to follow a sport without trusting its governing body i would suggest you hit the off button. The FIA would probably find your libelous accusations quite interesting. I'm glad that you trust the 'impartial' views of Pat Symonds, i'm afraid i beg to differ. But as my belief is only opinion, like yours, i cannot prove otherwise.

It would be amazing if the FIA [/i]were in Ferrari' pocket at such a sensitive time, but i fear that like so many other anti Ferrari people here, you are obsessed with the idea, find it easy to jump on the bandwagon and maybe even display a little mild paranoia.

Good luck with the petition.

[monza gorilla 1]

It was obivous

The car has to be above a minimum weight without any fuel in it. The BAR wasnt.

Please show me that regulation. As far as I am aware, no mention is made of "dry weight", in Article 4.1 of the technical regulations, and no alteration has been made since the BAR incident, which surprises me. However, it is mentioned for GT and sports cars, so there is inconsistency in the FIA's technical regulations between disciplines.

Moving right along, Article 6 (fuel system) states that only a single fuel tank may be used, but that an additional 2 litres may be stored outside this cell. So, as I have thought all along, the case was not quite as clear cut as everyone seemed to think. I know this is all old, old news but it's funny that a few members of the forum lambast the FIA at every turn, but accept their judgement in this case without question (I'm not referring to you Cav).

The reason for posting this is to point out that where a team perceive a rule to allow more scope than might be first apparent then they will try to exploit this, in the way that Ferrari and possibly some other teams are doing with their wing deflections. I do not believe that this is cheating, as such, but simply interpreting the regulations in a manner that the authors did not expect.

This has always happened in F1, and will continue to happen. It's what teams employ their designers to do, after all.

[rodders47 2]

MAYBE F1 cars use the same technology as AIRCRAFT.

If the wing don't FLEX it just bloody BREAKS Which is the safest ??? I Guess Jon Todt is just keeping his racing drivers safety at heart , and trying to save on Workers Compensation Claims hehehehehehehe

Have you ever sat above the wing on a 747 -400 ???

[Filipino_F1_Fan 0]

Please show me that regulation. As far as I am aware, no mention is made of "dry weight", in Article 4.1 of the technical regulations, and no alteration has been made since the BAR incident, which surprises me. However, it is mentioned for GT and sports cars, so there is inconsistency in the FIA's technical regulations between disciplines.

Moving right along, Article 6 (fuel system) states that only a single fuel tank may be used, but that an additional 2 litres may be stored outside this cell. So, as I have thought all along, the case was not quite as clear cut as everyone seemed to think. I know this is all old, old news but it's funny that a few members of the forum lambast the FIA at every turn, but accept their judgement in this case without question (I'm not referring to you Cav).

The reason for posting this is to point out that where a team perceive a rule to allow more scope than might be first apparent then they will try to exploit this, in the way that Ferrari and possibly some other teams are doing with their wing deflections. I do not believe that this is cheating, as such, but simply interpreting the regulations in a manner that the authors did not expect.

This has always happened in F1, and will continue to happen. It's what teams employ their designers to do, after all.

so true! Well said.

following that thought, if both ferrari and BAR were merely "interpreting the regulations in a manner that the authors did not expect" but BAR was sanctioned appropriately, i do believe that ferrari should suffer the same fate as well... it's but fair.

OK, so ferrari will change their front wing in AUS but is that it? That's all there is to it?

The FIA can do better than that.

Supposing everyone else was trying to bend that wing but how Ferrari did it was just too much... the maliciousness of it all is quite insulting.

[narain fan 0]

MAYBE F1 cars use the same technology as AIRCRAFT.

If the wing don't FLEX it just bloody BREAKS Which is the safest ??? I Guess Jon Todt is just keeping his racing drivers safety at heart , and trying to save on Workers Compensation Claims hehehehehehehe

Have you ever sat above the wing on a 747 -400 ???

my friend that was not the problem(no wing is 100%rigid). the problem was analysed beautifully by

Sir Jackie stewart in the daily Sportscentre -India show(i dont know where and how they they got hold of him and invited him to the SS studio though

and antonia they also interviewed Nico )

A front wing element moves at high speeds thereby there is a small gap between the nose cone and the front wing element and there is uninterrupted airflow in the highspeed straights.... when the car slows down the element "returns" to its original position(this is also its static position ,and when the FIA inspect it after the race it is "Normal"... ),this is visible to the naked eye only on the onboard camera fottage (fitted on the front wing) ,that too the footage was a slow mo and the part of the wing was circled and the remaining portion of the screen darkened...

[rodders47 2]

Hi Narain Fan

I was only (to use an aussie venacula) Taking The p**s Mate

BUT I do wonder WHY Ferrari would allow a mounting of a camera at that EXACT location, if they thought they were within the rules ?

Surely Jon Todt has enough pulling power to say, "Well guys mount the F(*&%&%^^&* g Camera HERE !!!??? NOT where you have ?????

[narain fan 0]

Hi Narain Fan

I was only (to use an aussie venacula) Taking The p**s Mate

BUT I do wonder WHY Ferrari would allow a mounting of a camera at that EXACT location, if they thought they were within the rules ?

Surely Jon Todt has enough pulling power to say, "Well guys mount the F(*&%&%^^&* g Camera HERE !!!??? NOT where you have ?????

it was not as if the camera was mounted just to inspect the wings ,infact i should not have said they were mounted on the front wing it was the onboard fottage in which the front wing was clearly visible....