"moving" Ferrari Floor Under Scrutiny From Rivals

[DOF_power 0]

Much as I'd like to see Alonso and Hamilton beat the guys in red, I value innovation above that. I'll be sorry to see this floor go away like I'm sorry to have lost TMD's and flexible wings.

I agree.

[DOF_power 0]

Can't wait to see Hammy spank alonso's hairy arse this season. He looked very composed and confident in the Mclaren.

Not gonna happen. Hamilton said he'll need a 3 year timesheet until he'll challenge for title.

moving floor or not the ferrari is clearly ahead because its a better car with the better driver!

Better car yes.

Does the flexi floor give it the edge or not, who knows (apart from Ferrari) ?!

Better driver, please stop kidding stopkidding.

Mclaren is still a bloody good car and if Alonso is really the "great" driver as his fans claim then he will take the fight to Ferrari and Kimi. Schumacher won his first title with benetton and Ferrari with non-dominant cars of the field. If Alonso can take the fight to the last race in this mclaren then he is truly a legend. if not, he is just a good driver making the most of the great renault package!

But that 1994 Benetton was ...

... was it really, ever, legal ?!

And how is crashing into someone's car and damaging it a worthy-legendary way to win a WDC ?!

1995 was a different matter.

[Taku 0]

i told her about Spyker and Williams being angry with STR & Aguri over the whole customer chassis issue, that prompted her to say how bitchy F1 is, and she referred to last year when people were angry with Ferrari (in her words) "for bits flapping about", then she said FIA should have a female leader who can say (again, her words not mine): "shutup you bitch" to Williams and Spyker.

Obviously I disagreed with the idea of a female FIA president. She went on to tell me that if she were an F1 driver she would have a pink and purple helmet to stand out

your wife sounds hilarious!

[tifosi too! 0]

There is no such thing as 'bending' the rules. You are either in compliance or not. The trouble with innovation is that it must exist first, then be classified and then compared to the existing rules to see if that innovation is legal or not. The alleged Ferrari innovation now exists and is being challenged. Now the FIA must look at it to see if it's legal or not. There is no 'bending' going on, just innovation and the classification of that innovation.

The "bending" of the rules comes when you make a movable aero device without making a "movable aero device" !!!!

But that 1994 Benetton was ...

... was it really, ever, legal ?!

And how is crashing into someone's car and damaging it a worthy-legendary way to win a WDC ?

!

The 1994 Benetton was not any more or less legal/illegal than any other winning car up until today.

And MS didn't crash into anyone.But DH did!!Watch the video.These things have been talked about in great extend in the past.

[DOF_power 0]

The 1994 Benetton was not any more or less legal/illegal than any other winning car up until today.

And MS didn't crash into anyone.But DH did!!Watch the video.These things have been talked about in great extend in the past.

I did watch it and I saw MS crash into DH, then I saw MS do the same to JV in 1997.

As for the Benetton that's simply not the case. That was one, if not the most shady/controversial car ever to win a F1 championship.

And please no more of this tifoso non-sense on how MS and/or Ferrari are or were ever saints.

[tifosi too! 0]

I did watch it and I saw MS crash into DH, then I saw MS do the same to JV in 1997.

As for the Benetton that's simply not the case. That was one, if not the most shady/controversial car ever to win a F1 championship.

And please no more of this tifoso non-sense on how MS and/or Ferrari are or were ever saints.

If thats what you saw then you need at least glasses.

How do you know anything you claim to know about the Benetton or any other car?

Don't call my or any other's opinion non-sense if you can't understand or think.This is a forum, everybody have their opinions which they are allowed to speak freely.Debate if you can.

[Quiet One 15]

If thats what you saw then you need at least glasses.

How do you know anything you claim to know about the Benetton or any other car?

Don't call my or any other's opinion non-sense if you can't understand or think.This is a forum, everybody have their opinions which they are allowed to speak freely.Debate if you can.

You mean you all are not forced to share MY opinion??? Then this forum is a waste of time!

[DOF_power 0]

If thats what you saw then you need at least glasses.

How do you know anything you claim to know about the Benetton or any other car?

Don't call my or any other's opinion non-sense if you can't understand or think.This is a forum, everybody have their opinions which they are allowed to speak freely.Debate if you can.

This wasn't about people not being entitled to their opinions. Just that their opinions can biased, false and (complete) non-sense.

A big, if not the biggest, non-sense is to say that (some) people don't have non-sense opinions. The people with the most non-sense opions are fanboys not to be comfused with fans. And they are the plague of forums.

Now to clarify certain things, I do not see Schumacher as a saint, much like I don't see Prost or Senna as saints. The stuff they pulled at Suzuka 89/ 90, Adelaide and/or Jerez is a disgrace to Formula 1 in particular and to motor-sport in general.

And maybe I need glasses, but maybe i don't, and it's some tifosi who do.

[c21 0]

If thats what you saw then you need at least glasses.

How do you know anything you claim to know about the Benetton or any other car?

Don't call my or any other's opinion non-sense if you can't understand or think.This is a forum, everybody have their opinions which they are allowed to speak freely.Debate if you can.

Well I guess I need glasses too then!

About the Benetton, I have a friend who was at Benetton at that time and freely admitted they cheated their asses off!

One thing was the Traction control system, another was I believe movable ballast. This was a while ago now, and there were other small things, but I cant remember.

And with the BMW, I havent seen or heard anything about a flexi floor, it looks quite normal to me.

[tifosi too! 0]

This wasn't about people not being entitled to their opinions. Just that their opinions can biased, false and (complete) non-sense.

A big, if not the biggest, non-sense is to say that (some) people don't have non-sense opinions. The people with the most non-sense opions are fanboys not to be comfused with fans. And they are the plague of forums.

Now to clarify certain things, I do not see Schumacher as a saint, much like I don't see Prost or Senna as saints. The stuff they pulled at Suzuka 89/ 90, Adelaide and/or Jerez is a disgrace to Formula 1 in particular and to motor-sport in general.

And maybe I need glasses, but maybe i don't, and it's some tifosi who do.

Man you are one confused person.I even bolded and underlined what i said so that you can understand the way you should be replying to people and not judge other people's opinions as stupid or non-sense because you are in no position to judge.Obviously no one has the right to do it exempt for some fools that may fit your profile.This is a forum and everybody can have their say.You think you are always right isn't it ?

Anyway whats up with the saint thing you keep saying?I 'll support my team and my favourite drivers any way I chose, no matter if they right or wrong, if that's what i chose to do at that given time.

Lets see now if you have any idea about the sporting regulations.Watch the next video and tell me which driver made a mistake.I 'll help you by saying that the car in front as long as it is half a car length ahead when coming to a corner has the right to turn in.

That goes for you too C21.Go ahead and make an optician rich!!

[rumblestrip 0]

That's gotta be the most ham-fisted excuse for driving I've ever seen. There should be rules about driving F1 cars while drunk.

[c21 0]

That's gotta be the most ham-fisted excuse for driving I've ever seen. There should be rules about driving F1 cars while drunk.

I guess you wear glasses too!

[Autumnpuma 0]

You mean you all are not forced to share MY opinion??? Then this forum is a waste of time!

Lets see now if you have any idea about the sporting regulations.Watch the next video and tell me which driver made a mistake.I 'll help you by saying that the car in front as long as it is half a car length ahead when coming to a corner has the right to turn in.

Please post the section and article where the Sporting Regulations say this.

I'll save you time searching, hit this link for the Sporting Regs:

http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/149...REGULATIONS.pdf

[tifosi too! 0]

Please post the section and article where the Sporting Regulations say this.

I'll save you time searching, hit this link for the Sporting Regs:

http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/149...REGULATIONS.pdf

Boy you are really on to something here...

I already have the regulations!Of course the most appropriate document would be the Code of Driving Conduct on Circuits

http://www.phaethon2004.org/downloads/Appendix5.pdf

Things are not very clear there on chapter IV, but it doesn't point to MS being at fault.

Anyway as a racing fan I guess you already know about the "half car length ahead rule" and is really a waste of time.Did DC had the right to overtake Wurz at the latest GP?DH did something a lot like it.

[c21 0]

Anyway leaving the "94" for a moment, Does anyone know how this floor is any different than previous years?

[Autumnpuma 0]

Boy you are really on to something here...

I already have the regulations!Of course the most appropriate document would be the Code of Driving Conduct on Circuits

http://www.phaethon2004.org/downloads/Appendix5.pdf

Thanks for the link. It appears that is an appendix to the International Sporting Code, a completely different document to the Formula 1 Sporting Regulations. The Sporting Regulations don't say anything about the 'half car length ahead rule'.

Things are not very clear there on chapter IV, but it doesn't point to MS being at fault.

Anyway as a racing fan I guess you already know about the "half car length ahead rule" and is really a waste of time.Did DC had the right to overtake Wurz at the latest GP?DH did something a lot like it.

Your sarcasm is getting old. Try dropping it and you'll come off looking better. Now here is the section of your posted document that would contain the 'half car length rule':

2 - OVERTAKING

a) during a race, a car alone on the track may use the full width ofthe said track. However, as soon as it is caught up on a straight by a car which is either temporarily or constantly faster, the driver shall give the other vehicle the right of way by pulling over to one side in order to allow for passing on the other side.

B ) if the driver who has been caught does not seem to make full use of his rear-view mirror the flag marshal(s) will give a warning by waving the blue flag to indicate that another competitor wants to overtake. Any driver who does not take notice of the blue flag may be penalised by the Sporting Stewards. Systematic or repeated offences may result in the exclusion of the offender from the race.

c ) curves, as well as the approach and exit zones thereof, may be negotiated by the drivers in any way they wish, within the limits of the track. Overtaking, according to the circumstances, may be done either on the right or on the left. However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers such as premature changes of direction, more than one change of direction, deliberate crowding of cars towards the inside or the outside of the curve or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited and shall be penalised, according to the importance and repetition of the offences, by penalties ranging from a fine to the exclusion from the race. The repetition of dangerous driving, even involuntary, may result in the exclusion from the race.

d) any obstructive manoeuvre carried out by one or several drivers, either having common interests or not, is prohibited. The persistent driving abreast of several vehicles, as well as fan-shaped arrangement, is authorised only if there is not another car trying to overtake. Otherwise the blue flag will be waved.

e) the penalty inflicted for ignoring the blue flag will also be applied to the drivers who obstruct part of the track and shall be more severe in the case of systematic obstruction, thus ranging from a fine to the exclusion from the race. The same penalty shall be applied to drivers who swing from one side of the track to the other in order to prevent other competitors from overtaking.

f) the repetition of serious mistakes or the appearance of a lack of control over the car (such as leaving the track) may entail the exclusion of the drivers concerned.

g) the race track alone shall be used by the drivers during the race.

Now I don't see anything there about a 'half a car length' but perhaps you posted the wrong document? Anyway, my point here is that the half car rule isn't a rule, but an agreement. It's agreed that if you are half a car length up during a passing move, the driver being passed should give way. Most stewards will rule with this in mind, but they are not required to. The key point is this: can it be shown that the driver being passed made a reasonable attempt to give the passer room to move? In the case of Wurz, I don't believe he even saw DC until the Red Bull was on top of his nosecone. You could argue that Wurz should have been checking his mirrors, but again, I believe that DC went off line too early for Wurz to be reasonably concerned with checking his mirrors.

Since no action was taken by the stewards (I think) this proves that I'm correct, no?

[tifosi too! 0]

Thanks for the link.

Your sarcasm is getting old. Try dropping it and you'll come off looking better. Now here is the section of your posted document that would contain the 'half car length rule':

Now I don't see anything there about a 'half a car length' but perhaps you posted the wrong document? Anyway, my point here is that the half car rule isn't a rule, but an agreement. It's agreed that if you are half a car length up during a passing move, the driver being passed should give way. Most stewards will rule with this in mind, but they are not required to. The key point is this: can it be shown that the driver being passed made a reasonable attempt to give the passer room to move? In the case of Wurz, I don't believe he even saw DC until the Red Bull was on top of his nosecone. You could argue that Wurz should have been checking his mirrors, but again, I believe that DC went off line too early for Wurz to be reasonably concerned with checking his mirrors.

Since no action was taken by the stewards (I think) this proves that I'm correct, no?

1. Actually I just found that as well!

2. My sarcasm is getting old and I ain't getting any younger, trying to prove the well-known and obvious.There was no need to even look for a rule since you and I and everyone else here knows that is way overtaking takes place legally on the track.

Dc was at fault definitely there is no need to talk about that.Wurz could do nothing to avoid it.

[c21 0]

Has anyone seen or got any photos of the Ferrari in the pits without the floor?

Im trying to see how this alleged floor works, or if anything looks unconventional

[tifosi too! 0]

Has anyone seen or got any photos of the Ferrari in the pits without the floor?

Im trying to see how this alleged floor works, or if anything looks unconventional

I only read the article Ykick posted on the first page.I believe things are not that clear yet!

[Autumnpuma 0]

2. My sarcasm is getting old and I ain't getting any younger, trying to prove the well-known and obvious.There was no need to even look for a rule since you and I and everyone else here knows that is way overtaking takes place legally on the track.

It may seem at first like I'm arguing a separate issue from the original topic, but I haven't been. Just as the rules do not specifically state anything about a 'half car rule', so is the evidence of this moveable floor. Neither is based on anything substantial and both are extrapolations.

[Autumnpuma 0]

I only read the article Ykick posted on the first page.I believe things are not that clear yet!

Read this thread. Photos are on page three with animations depicting possible scenarios.

page 1 of the thread:

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic...asc&start=0

Page 3 of the thread:

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic...sc&start=30

One interesting bit from that thread is the mention of this being driver-operated. I'll have to look at the Ferrari onboards again and see if Kimi is adjusting the brake bias or something else......you can clearly see Kimi's hand adjusting something, but it would be difficult to prove it was a moving floor rather than brake bais without a view of the c#ckpit and identifying where the bias adjuster is.

[c21 0]

Read this thread. Photos are on page three with animations depicting possible scenarios.

page 1 of the thread:

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic...asc&start=0

Page 3 of the thread:

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic...sc&start=30

One interesting bit from that thread is the mention of this being driver-operated. I'll have to look at the Ferrari onboards again and see if Kimi is adjusting the brake bias or something else......you can clearly see Kimi's hand adjusting something, but it would be difficult to prove it was a moving floor rather than brake bais without a view of the c#ckpit and identifying where the bias adjuster is.

Good find!

Although the sketches are a little far fetched.

The stay on the BMW picture has to support a lot of ballast, therefore must be of robust construction.

I still want to see the Ferrari though

[tifosi too! 0]

It may seem at first like I'm arguing a separate issue from the original topic, but I haven't been. Just as the rules do not specifically state anything about a 'half car rule', so is the evidence of this moveable floor. Neither is based on anything substantial and both are extrapolations.

The method followed by the drivers equals to a rule and it should have led to a such rule to be made if it's not already "legislated".It has the same power as a written rule, it's not a code of honour.The stewards rulings about various incidents also enhance this fact.When they decide, they don't search for rules.They decide based on the actual facts and according to the way races take place.The drivers have subjected themselves to these rules.I, however don't have enough time to look more into it!Maybe in a few days..

Oh and the links are very good!I 'm waiting to see where this will lead though.I don't expect anything major out of this actually.

[Quiet One 15]

Read this thread. Photos are on page three with animations depicting possible scenarios.

page 1 of the thread:

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic...asc&start=0

Page 3 of the thread:

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic...sc&start=30

One interesting bit from that thread is the mention of this being driver-operated. I'll have to look at the Ferrari onboards again and see if Kimi is adjusting the brake bias or something else......you can clearly see Kimi's hand adjusting something, but it would be difficult to prove it was a moving floor rather than brake bais without a view of the c#ckpit and identifying where the bias adjuster is.

Well actually he takes the hand of the wheel and reaches something to his right at some point (in the split video fo him and Alonso)

[Autumnpuma 0]

Good find!

Although the sketches are a little far fetched.

The stay on the BMW picture has to support a lot of ballast, therefore must be of robust construction.

I still want to see the Ferrari though

I believe in that thread I posted one of the pages has the Ferrari pic..possibly page 1 or 2.

Well actually he takes the hand of the wheel and reaches something to his right at some point (in the split video fo him and Alonso)

Yeah, I seem to remember MS doing that as well with his right hand and it's generally accepted that he was adjusting the brake bias. Kimi is likely doing the same thing. For the theory to be plausible that Kimi is activating a floor-lowering mechanism, I'm not sure how you could tell that from a standard brake bias adjustment....I suppose you could watch the in-car and see if Kimi adjusts something at the start of a straight or at the start of a turn..the straight could mean a floor lowering moment and the turn could mean brake bias.