Todt: McLaren at a clear advantage (ECU)
Anand
have been forced to use the damn thing on our car.
I am with Todt. Need to keep a close eye on it.
Source: Almost Human
Ferrari’s Jean Todt reckons McLaren has gained an advantage because it
built the electronic system which all Formula 1 teams must now use.
McLaren are at a clear advantage this year because they built the
electronic system which all Formula 1 teams must now use, Ferrari chief
executive Jean Todt claimed on Monday.
The SECU (Standard Electronic Control Unit) produced by McLaren
Electronic Systems is a major development for the new season, which
starts on March 16 in Melbourne.
“We would have preferred that the single control unit for all Formula 1
teams was built by another company. We must accept the fact that McLaren
with Microsoft put forward the most economic proposal,” Todt told
reporters. “It is clear it is a situation to monitor. But it is obvious
that, at least at the start, McLaren will have an advantage in the
championship,” added the Frenchman, who has handed the reins of the
racing team to Stefano Domenicali while he remains boss of the company.
The rivalry between the two teams was extremely heated in 2007 with the
Italian outfit becoming constructors champions after McLaren were
stripped of all their points for a spying scandal involving sensitive
Ferrari information.
Ferrari’s Kimi Raikkonen also beat McLaren’s Lewis Hamilton and Fernando
Alonso to the driver’s title by one point. Alonso has since returned to
Renault.
The new Ferrari F2008 car was given its first run out by Raikkonen at
the team’s Maranello base on Monday with the Finn managing some 20 laps
without any problems. The track was slightly damp and provided an early
challenge for Raikkonen given Formula 1 cars have no traction control
this season.
--
Murray: "And there is Zonta's car being craned away."
Martin: "I used to hate driving underneath that."
Bob Dubery
Anand wrote:
> McLaren and Microsoft, two sides of the same coin. And now we
> have been forced to use the damn thing on our car.
>
> I am with Todt. Need to keep a close eye on it.
Why?
This should be no surprise to anybody. It's been known for some time
now that this ECU would be used, and McLaren have provided
specifications to all teams.
Further, regulations require that the software in the ECU cannot be
amended after a stipulated date. So it would be very easy to check for
running of non-standard software.
If McLaren are going to gain some kind of advantage by virtue of their
familiarity with this system then somebody should have raised that as
an issue a year ago.
It looks like whinging when you voice your complaints too late.
Dr Hfuhruhurr
Anand? Whinging? Never. Really?
And all he does is talk about McLaren & Lewis. Sounds like an
obsession to me.
Doc
Bob Dubery
> > It looks like whinging when you voice your complaints too late.
>
> Anand? Whinging? Never. Really?
I was referring to Todt.
> And all he does is talk about McLaren & Lewis. Sounds like an
> obsession to me.
That's a different thing. I don't believe Todt spends his every waking
moment thinking about McLaren, Ron and/or Lewis.
Dr Hfuhruhurr
> On Jan 8, 1:20 pm, Dr Hfuhruhurr <doc.hfuhruh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > It looks like whinging when you voice your complaints too late.
>
> > Anand? Whinging? Never. Really?
>
> I was referring to Todt.
Ah, I see.
> > And all he does is talk about McLaren & Lewis. Sounds like an
> > obsession to me.
>
> That's a different thing. I don't believe Todt spends his every waking
> moment thinking about McLaren, Ron and/or Lewis.
No. That would be the OP I was referring to.
Wires now uncrossed
Doc
forty
> If McLaren are going to gain some kind of advantage by virtue of their
> familiarity with this system then somebody should have raised that as
> an issue a year ago.
>
IIRC quite a few team heads did.
--
forty
"There's a very fine line between not listening, and not caring. I like
to think that I walk that line every day of my life."
Owl...@woody.creek
wrote:
>McLaren and Microsoft, two sides of the same coin. And now we
>have been forced to use the damn thing on our car.
>
>I am with Todt. Need to keep a close eye on it.
>
>Source: Almost Human
>Ferrari’s Jean Todt reckons McLaren has gained an advantage because it
>built the electronic system which all Formula 1 teams must now use.
>
>McLaren are at a clear advantage this year because they built the
>electronic system which all Formula 1 teams must now use, Ferrari chief
>executive Jean Todt claimed on Monday.
>
>The SECU (Standard Electronic Control Unit) produced by McLaren
>Electronic Systems is a major development for the new season, which
>starts on March 16 in Melbourne.
>
>“We would have preferred that the single control unit for all Formula 1
>teams was built by another company. We must accept the fact that McLaren
>reporters. “It is clear it is a situation to monitor. But it is obvious
>that, at least at the start, McLaren will have an advantage in the
>racing team to Stefano Domenicali while he remains boss of the company.
>
>The rivalry between the two teams was extremely heated in 2007 with the
>Italian outfit becoming constructors champions after McLaren were
>stripped of all their points for a spying scandal involving sensitive
>Ferrari information.
>
>Ferrari’s Kimi Raikkonen also beat McLaren’s Lewis Hamilton and Fernando
>Alonso to the driver’s title by one point. Alonso has since returned to
>Renault.
>
>The new Ferrari F2008 car was given its first run out by Raikkonen at
>the team’s Maranello base on Monday with the Finn managing some 20 laps
>without any problems. The track was slightly damp and provided an early
>challenge for Raikkonen given Formula 1 cars have no traction control
>this season.
Giving McLaren the contract for the spec-ECU is an act of corruption
that beggar's description.
--
"Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?"
Lloyd
> McLaren and Microsoft, two sides of the same coin. And now we
> have been forced to use the damn thing on our car.
>
> I am with Todt. Need to keep a close eye on it.
>
> Source: Almost Human
> Ferrari's Jean Todt reckons McLaren has gained an advantage because it
> built the electronic system which all Formula 1 teams must now use.
>
Kind of like when McLaren had to go to Bridgestone tires this year,
which had developed tires for Ferrari?
Lloyd
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 03:34:11 +0000 (UTC), Anand <anandnNOS...@gmx.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >McLaren and Microsoft, two sides of the same coin. And now we
> >have been forced to use the damn thing on our car.
>
> >I am with Todt. Need to keep a close eye on it.
>
> >Source: Almost Human
> >built the electronic system which all Formula 1 teams must now use.
>
> >McLaren are at a clear advantage this year because they built the
> >electronic system which all Formula 1 teams must now use, Ferrari chief
> >executive Jean Todt claimed on Monday.
>
> >The SECU (Standard Electronic Control Unit) produced by McLaren
> >Electronic Systems is a major development for the new season, which
> >starts on March 16 in Melbourne.
>
> >teams was built by another company. We must accept the fact that McLaren
> >reporters. âEUROOEIt is clear it is a situation to monitor. But it is obvious
> >that, at least at the start, McLaren will have an advantage in the
> >racing team to Stefano Domenicali while he remains boss of the company.
>
> >The rivalry between the two teams was extremely heated in 2007 with the
> >Italian outfit becoming constructors champions after McLaren were
> >stripped of all their points for a spying scandal involving sensitive
> >Ferrari information.
>
> >Alonso to the driverâEURO(tm)s title by one point. Alonso has since returned to
> >Renault.
>
> >The new Ferrari F2008 car was given its first run out by Raikkonen at
> >without any problems. The track was slightly damp and provided an early
> >challenge for Raikkonen given Formula 1 cars have no traction control
> >this season.
>
> Giving McLaren the contract for the spec-ECU is an act of corruption
> that beggar's description.
>
> --
> "Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?"
Ah, another whiny little brat. You and Hello Freddie on the
playground together?
peter
>McLaren and Microsoft, two sides of the same coin. And now we
>have been forced to use the damn thing on our car.
>
>I am with Todt. Need to keep a close eye on it.
>
>Source: Almost Human
>built the electronic system which all Formula 1 teams must now use.
>
>McLaren are at a clear advantage this year because they built the
>electronic system which all Formula 1 teams must now use, Ferrari chief
>executive Jean Todt claimed on Monday.
>
>The SECU (Standard Electronic Control Unit) produced by McLaren
>Electronic Systems is a major development for the new season, which
>starts on March 16 in Melbourne.
>
>teams was built by another company. We must accept the fact that McLaren
>reporters. “It is clear it is a situation to monitor. But it is obvious
>that, at least at the start, McLaren will have an advantage in the
>racing team to Stefano Domenicali while he remains boss of the company.
Ferrari voted for the spec ECU and McLaren voted against it.
And now they are bitching who gets to build it despite it being to a
design and specification set by the FIA and not McLaren.
The twats at Ferrari should just STFU for once.
--
Peter
Hello Freddie
>
> - Show quoted text -
More like you lurking around the bushes at Clapham Common with George
Michael.
CatharticF1
@mid.individual.net:
> Bob Dubery wrote:
>
>> If McLaren are going to gain some kind of advantage by virtue of their
>> familiarity with this system then somebody should have raised that as
>> an issue a year ago.
>>
>
> IIRC quite a few team heads did.
For example:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61758
--
CatharticF1
CatharticF1
09e289...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 7, 10:34 pm, Anand <anandnNOS...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> McLaren and Microsoft, two sides of the same coin. And now we
>> have been forced to use the damn thing on our car.
>>
>> I am with Todt. Need to keep a close eye on it.
>>
>> Source: Almost Human
>> Ferrari's Jean Todt reckons McLaren has gained an advantage because it
>> built the electronic system which all Formula 1 teams must now use.
>>
>
> Kind of like when McLaren had to go to Bridgestone tires this year,
> which had developed tires for Ferrari?
Thank heavens McLaren managed to get around that by cheating, huh!?
Otherwise - you have a point.
:)
--
CatharticF1
Raoul Duke
wrote:
Which element of "conflict of interests" do you need explained to you,
Socrates?
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery wrote:
> > If McLaren are going to gain some kind of advantage by virtue of their
> > familiarity with this system then somebody should have raised that as
> > an issue a year ago.
>
> IIRC quite a few team heads did.
Well I haven't read every word on the subject, but the bit of googling
that I did shows that back in 2006 Ferrari, or at least Ross Brawn,
were quite confident about what was going to be provided and how MES
were going to co-operate with other teams.
One factor that did seem to emerge early this year was that MES aren't
used to having to service 11 teams and found the increased load hard
to handle for a while.
Interestingly the ECU turns out to be joint M$soft and MES, and some
say that is far more M$oft than MES.
Ferrari and Renault were both using Magnetti Marelli systems, and
Renault's objections center around the standard system being less
sophisticated than the one they are accustomed to using.
MM bid for the contract to supply a standard ECU, but the M$oft/MES
combination won that battle.
Note that at least two teams were using MM or MM-based systems. It
would similarly seem that teams other than McLaren were using systems
based on the MES system. I wonder what system Spyker and RBR used last
year?
I wonder if the likes of Anand would be complaining so much if the MM
system had been adopted as the standard, thus conferring, at least
arguably, an advantage on Ferrari and Renault.
Unless FIA went for a supplier who has (or had then) no involvement in
F1 then it was always going to be the case that some teams would gain
this kind of advantage (though how real it is remains to be seen).
And, of course, the minute this new to F1 supplier was announced at
least one team would have signed up with that supplier with a view to
getting an edge come 2008.
Bob Dubery
> forty <cfort...@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in news:5uhbr0F1hfigdU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
> > Bob Dubery wrote:
>
> >> If McLaren are going to gain some kind of advantage by virtue of their
> >> familiarity with this system then somebody should have raised that as
> >> an issue a year ago.
>
> > IIRC quite a few team heads did.
>
> For example:
>
> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61758
Ummmm... where in that article are the complaints about McLaren
gaining an advantage?
a_Frank
<mega...@gmail.com> wrote:
>MM bid for the contract to supply a standard ECU, but the M$oft/MES
>combination won that battle.
>
Of course they did and as i recall the tender was open for all
interested parties, not just those already involved in F1.
Someone had to win.
>Note that at least two teams were using MM or MM-based systems. It
>would similarly seem that teams other than McLaren were using systems
>based on the MES system. I wonder what system Spyker and RBR used last
>year?
>
>I wonder if the likes of Anand would be complaining so much if the MM
>system had been adopted as the standard, thus conferring, at least
>arguably, an advantage on Ferrari and Renault.
>
It matters not who did it. Had Skoda made them, someone would find a
remote link to a given team's spark plugs which may have been polished
by an ex Tatra employee whose cousin's sister's son works in Skoda's
administration office as a coffee boy.. hence claim an advantage. It's
the nature of the inane fan.
>Unless FIA went for a supplier who has (or had then) no involvement in
>F1 then it was always going to be the case that some teams would gain
>this kind of advantage (though how real it is remains to be seen).
>And, of course, the minute this new to F1 supplier was announced at
>least one team would have signed up with that supplier with a view to
>getting an edge come 2008.
>
I would've liked someone like Ford or GM making it. They have next to
no insterest in F1 now and certainly have the know-how to do it. The
FIA made a stupid mistake by allowing such strong ties between a team
and the ECU maker.
Just for kicks, how sure can we be that certain aspects are not
presented to the teams in a slightly misleading way ? Even by
"forgetting" to mention a given characteristic to 10 teams, the 11th
team *could* get a subtle advantage for the time it remains unsaid.
Deep deep speculation of course, but it is not an impossible scenario
to imagine.
None the less, i can already hear the stupids whinging if McLaren will
continue to have a strong car this year.
--
Regards, Frank
CatharticF1
news:545379a0-9688-4530...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Well I'd suggest it's implicit: Other teams experiencing problems with them
would suggest a disadvantage which relatively provides an advantage to
those not disadvantaged.
You don't think so?
--
CatharticF1
a_Frank
wrote:
You mean kinda like Michelin teams did, after having been forced onto
Bridgestones ? :)
No matter who made the things, there would be teething problems.
The idea is to get the engines to operate in a similar (and
controlled) fashion and by doing that, bring the competition closer.
Some, like Ferrari, Merc and maybe BMW with the more powerful engines
might see problems, because they are basically asked to down tune
their engines to match the software(kind of a reverse mentality),
however, i think all of them have to do that. Perhaps to a different
degree, but all have to make changes.
So of course, this change will cause headaches to some. With the TC
gone, how many chassis will be disadvantaged and how long will it take
to refine them further to ignore what previously the TC could handle ?
Nobody knows, it may be done in weeks, some may struggle for months.
Even drivers like Kimi, reportedly had quite a hassle with the TC-less
Ferrari, so is it going to take him 2 weeks or 2 months to get used to
it ? Will he be at an advantage or not ?
This could be one well mixed up season. Which is good. :)
--
Regards, Frank
Dr Hfuhruhurr
And in other news, the Bible is actually a Hi-Fi instruction manual.
Doc
David Melville
Three Words: No TC systems.
--
Cheers,
Dave
"If you expect sex from me, then
don't bring me into a cold house."
- Bu-eeiy, 28/7/07 2:00am
Bob Dubery
Let's recap. I'll try to type slowly...
What I said was "If McLaren are going to gain some kind of advantage
by virtue of their familiarity with this system then somebody should
have raised that as an issue a year ago."
To which forty replied "IIRC quite a few team heads did".
You, in reply to forty, provided that URL. It neither has any team
lead complaining, as Todt suddenly remembered to do, that teams
accustomed to that system would have an advantage, nor were those
complaints aired "a year ago" other than in the sense that it's now
2008 and the remarks were made in 2007 (by which definition whatever
you were doing at 23:59 on December 31st - and I don't wish to know
the details - was done "a year ago").
I'd be interested to know if McLaren were using that system in 2007.
Renault have complained about how primitive it is. I don't expect all
teams to have systems at the exact same level of sophistication, but
I'd be very surprised if what McLaren were running last year is as
primitive as Symonds alleges the now standard system to be.
peter
>Bob Dubery wrote:
>
>> If McLaren are going to gain some kind of advantage by virtue of their
>> familiarity with this system then somebody should have raised that as
>> an issue a year ago.
>>
>
>IIRC quite a few team heads did.
>
FIA, McLaren had no part in it. Test units were built by the designated
company and provided to all teams at the same time late summer 2007.
In what world does that provide McLaren an advantage?
Its just Ferraris usual subversive posturing trying to gain some
political advantage.
--
Peter
FB
"Bob Dubery" <mega...@gmail.com> wrote
news:babd7590-3a00-489d...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
(snip)
>
> Interestingly the ECU turns out to be joint M$soft and MES, and some
> say that is far more M$oft than MES.
>
yeah, the new ECU looks typical M$...
Peter James
"peter" <sco...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in message
news:p$2DRPA9p...@ntlworld.com...
> The hardware and software design for the spec ECU is provided by the FIA,
> McLaren had no part in it. Test units were built by the designated company
> and provided to all teams at the same time late summer 2007.
> In what world does that provide McLaren an advantage?
> Its just Ferraris usual subversive posturing trying to gain some political
> advantage.
Precisely. Unfortunately posters such as PatheticF1 seem unable to grasp
this.
Lloyd
> Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote in news:b01208ef-e95b-4046-ad85-
> 09e2893a5...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
Well, Ferrari can always run their flexible floor again.
Lloyd
> "Bob Dubery" <megap...@gmail.com> wrotenews:babd7590-3a00-489d...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> (snip)
>
>
>
> > Interestingly the ECU turns out to be joint M$soft and MES, and some
> > say that is far more M$oft than MES.
>
> yeah, the new ECU looks typical M$...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/stji
Does it have control-alt-delete keys for rebooting?
Raoul Duke
wrote:
>On Jan 7, 10:34 pm, Anand <anandnNOS...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> McLaren and Microsoft, two sides of the same coin. And now we
>> have been forced to use the damn thing on our car.
>>
>> I am with Todt. Need to keep a close eye on it.
>>
>> Source: Almost Human
>> Ferrari's Jean Todt reckons McLaren has gained an advantage because it
>> built the electronic system which all Formula 1 teams must now use.
>
>Kind of like when McLaren had to go to Bridgestone tires this year,
>which had developed tires for Ferrari?
Not at all: The one-make Bridgestones were just as different for
Ferrari as they were for everyone else and Ferrari didn't spec,
design, and fabricate them; never mind without independent oversight
or process control.
But even a child, well an honest one, could see that.
Raoul Duke
wrote:
>On Jan 8, 10:12 pm, CatharticF1 <eferr...@heaven.net> wrote:
>> Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote in news:b01208ef-e95b-4046-ad85-
>> 09e2893a5...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Jan 7, 10:34 pm, Anand <anandnNOS...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> >> McLaren and Microsoft, two sides of the same coin. And now we
>> >> have been forced to use the damn thing on our car.
>>
>> >> I am with Todt. Need to keep a close eye on it.
>>
>> >> Source: Almost Human
>> >> Ferrari's Jean Todt reckons McLaren has gained an advantage because it
>> >> built the electronic system which all Formula 1 teams must now use.
>>
>> > Kind of like when McLaren had to go to Bridgestone tires this year,
>> > which had developed tires for Ferrari?
>>
>> Thank heavens McLaren managed to get around that by cheating, huh!?
>> Otherwise - you have a point.
>
When was Ferrari's floor ever illegal?
Ian Dalziel
wrote:
It was always illegal.
--
Ian D
a_Frank
wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 11:54:39 -0800 (PST), Lloyd <lpa...@emory.edu>
>wrote:
>>On Jan 7, 10:34 pm, Anand <anandnNOS...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> McLaren and Microsoft, two sides of the same coin. And now we
>>> have been forced to use the damn thing on our car.
>>>
>>> I am with Todt. Need to keep a close eye on it.
>>>
>>> Source: Almost Human
>>> Ferrari's Jean Todt reckons McLaren has gained an advantage because it
>>> built the electronic system which all Formula 1 teams must now use.
>>
>>Kind of like when McLaren had to go to Bridgestone tires this year,
>>which had developed tires for Ferrari?
>
>Not at all: The one-make Bridgestones were just as different for
>Ferrari as they were for everyone else and Ferrari didn't spec,
>design, and fabricate them; never mind without independent oversight
>or process control.
>
Rubbish. Ferrari was *the* main tester for Bridgestone and rightly so
being the most succesful team running on them. They have accumulated
more data than any other team out there, including the other B teams,
not to mention those who ran on Michis and had only Michelin data up
to that time.
>But even a child, well an honest one, could see that.
>
Even a toddler could see that years of performance, wear and handling
characteristics data would be more than beneficial to one team against
those who simply don't have any data.
A blind or dishonest child may think that Bridgestone suddenly did an
about face and started creating tyres with and entirely new and
different mentality to their previous designs to provide an even
playing field.
--
Regards, Frank
Bob Dubery
> The hardware and software design for the spec ECU is provided by the
> FIA, McLaren had no part in it. Test units were built by the designated
> company and provided to all teams at the same time late summer 2007.
> In what world does that provide McLaren an advantage?
> Its just Ferraris usual subversive posturing trying to gain some
> political advantage.
Or sowing in impressionable minds the seed of the thought that if
Ferrari lose then, by definition, something underhanded must have been
going on.
It's called getting your excuse in first.
kuze...@duke.edu
> --
> "Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?"
No point in mentioning the bats. The poor bastard will see them soon
enough.
I like your username and sig. :-) I'm rather a fan of the good doctor
myself. The last few months I've been living in Louisville, KY, the town
in which he was born. Had an idea for a new license plate, but the state
doesn't seem interested:
http://www.duke.edu/~kuzen001/ky_licenseplate.jpg
--A 300-pound Samoan data technician
_______________________________________________
Ken Kuzenski AC4RD atsign mindspring dotsign com
_______________________________________________
All disclaimers apply, see? www.duke.edu/~kuzen001
gs
There's as much chance as their obsessive fans having something relevant to
say as Ferrari keeping their mouths shut on something.
Raoul Duke
>Raoul Duke <Owl....@woody.creek> wrote:
>> --
>> "Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?"
>
>No point in mentioning the bats. The poor bastard will see them soon
>enough.
"Buy the ticket; take the ride."
>I like your username and sig. :-) I'm rather a fan of the good doctor
>myself.
Read Perry's biography then saw the STARZ documentary a week or so
ago, re-read FALILV in an afternoon then re-watched the
Gilliam/Depp/del Toro movie two days later: I'm going through
phase...
>The last few months I've been living in Louisville, KY, the town
>in which he was born. Had an idea for a new license plate, but the state
>doesn't seem interested:
>
> http://www.duke.edu/~kuzen001/ky_licenseplate.jpg
Love it! I'd register a car there just to get one!
Raoul Duke
Do you think you kids could include some marker in your subject lines
when you have something more to say than anti-Ferrari groundless
contradiction?
Raoul Duke
<fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote:
>On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:34:47 GMT, Raoul Duke <Owl....@Woody.Creek>
>wrote:
>>On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 11:54:39 -0800 (PST), Lloyd <lpa...@emory.edu>
>>wrote:
>>>On Jan 7, 10:34 pm, Anand <anandnNOS...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>> McLaren and Microsoft, two sides of the same coin. And now we
>>>> have been forced to use the damn thing on our car.
>>>>
>>>> I am with Todt. Need to keep a close eye on it.
>>>>
>>>> Source: Almost Human
>>>> Ferrari's Jean Todt reckons McLaren has gained an advantage because it
>>>> built the electronic system which all Formula 1 teams must now use.
>>>
>>>Kind of like when McLaren had to go to Bridgestone tires this year,
>>>which had developed tires for Ferrari?
>>
>>Not at all: The one-make Bridgestones were just as different for
>>Ferrari as they were for everyone else and Ferrari didn't spec,
>>design, and fabricate them; never mind without independent oversight
>>or process control.
>>
>Rubbish. Ferrari was *the* main tester for Bridgestone and rightly so
>being the most succesful team running on them. They have accumulated
>more data than any other team out there, including the other B teams,
>not to mention those who ran on Michis and had only Michelin data up
>to that time.
The one-make tires were not anything like the ones Bridgestone had
been making when in competition with Michelin. Even Ferrari had to
adapt to the differences in construction and materials.
>>But even a child, well an honest one, could see that.
>>
>Even a toddler could see that years of performance, wear and handling
>characteristics data would be more than beneficial to one team against
>those who simply don't have any data.
Chalk and Cheese.
>A blind or dishonest child may think that Bridgestone suddenly did an
>about face and started creating tyres with and entirely new and
>different mentality to their previous designs to provide an even
>playing field.
Who said anything of the sort?
Raoul Duke
Last season? All last season?
I remember Dennis protested them after Australia for having a flexing
floor, it was later revealed he had a spy at Ferrari who'd tipped him
off that their system was better than McLaren's, and the regulation
governing the deflection test was then changed going forward, but
several other teams including McLaren were using systems that were
still flexing yet passing the re-written regulation, so another
re-write was ordered up to further limit the flexing of all floor
systems... But I don't remember Ferrari's ever being "illegal".
Can you supply a link?
Phil Newnham
> Last season? All last season?
>
> I remember Dennis protested them after Australia for having a flexing
> floor, it was later revealed he had a spy at Ferrari who'd tipped him
> off that their system was better than McLaren's, and the regulation
> governing the deflection test was then changed going forward, but
> several other teams including McLaren were using systems that were
> still flexing yet passing the re-written regulation, so another
> re-write was ordered up to further limit the flexing of all floor
> systems... But I don't remember Ferrari's ever being "illegal".
>
> Can you supply a link?
Your memory is broken. Dennis supplied the FIA with a design which he
wanted to use, and asked if it was legal. Charlie Whiting replied that
it was clearly in breach of the rules. Jean Todt later claimed that the
design Dennis submitted for the FIA to rule on was the floor Ferrari
were running, leaked to McLaren by Stepney. Ferrari were never found to
be illegal by the stewards but as any follower of F1 means, that means
nothing - the stewards have in the past found cars legal only for the
FIA to appeal against their decision and win. If the FIA can't trust the
stewards then they are not 100% reliable arbiters of what is legal or
not legal.
--
Phil
Raoul Duke
wrote:
So...
Dennis gets the rule re-written because they won't let him run a
system which is better than his own system, which he knows Ferrari are
running because he has a spy inside Ferrari telling him so.
And Ferrari never actually runs a system which the FIA nor the
stewards have declared illegal beforehand.
...Right?
gs
> when you have something more to say than anti-Ferrari groundless
> contradiction?
How was that for you? I've not seen you comment on the thousands of anti
MacLaren posts here or anti Hamilton/Ron Dennis - or are you selective about
who you try to protect.
gs
Could you have the manners to mark your posts if they are off topic, this is
a F1 newsgroup.
Ian Dalziel
wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:54:02 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnew...@yahoo.com>
Wrong.
The rule was never re-written.
--
Ian D
Phil Carmody
Wrong. The rule was not re-written.
I'll rewrite the next bit as you seem to be missing a few
essential points:
> because they won't let him run a
> system which is [illegal but] better than his own [legal]
> system, which he knows [for reasons irrelevant to the
> question of legality of floors with designed-in degrees
> of freedom].
Yes - with those modifications, you've actually got something
correct. Congratulations - now try to achieve that without
requiring wholesale editing of your post.
> And Ferrari never actually runs a system which the FIA nor the
> stewards have declared illegal beforehand.
No, but Whiting declared the technology the Ferrari car won
a race with illegal afterwards.
The FIA didn't accuse McLaren of posessing information from
another team beforehand either.
What makes you think that prescience is an important factor?
> ...Right?
You're right that the FIA was unable to look into the future,
but they clearly made statements about things which were
in the past, and those statements clearly support Phil's
post, and negate yours.
You're just another one of the loons. Welcome to the Ferrari
wankfest in my killfile.
Phil
--
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
-- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration
peter
>So...
>Dennis gets the rule re-written because they won't let him run a
>system which is better than his own system, which he knows Ferrari are
>running because he has a spy inside Ferrari telling him so.
>And Ferrari never actually runs a system which the FIA nor the
>stewards have declared illegal beforehand.
>
>...Right?
>
Stepney emails the FIA before the season starts informing them that
Ferrari intend to run an illegal floor design. When the FIA take no
action Stepney sends details of the design to McLaren just as the first
race approaches. McLaren present the design to the FIA 3 days before the
first race and ask if such a system on the Ferrari would be legal to run
in the Australian race. The FIA take no action until after the race when
they state that the design is illegal but take no retrospective action.
No rules are rewritten.
Apparently Ferrari were running the same illegal floor design at the end
of the previous season and the FIA were aware of it then.
--
Peter
kuze...@duke.edu
SORRY! Here, I'll get it back on topic: "Hamilton's a fag, Alonso's a
jerk, Kimi's a boor, Ron Dennis is Satan, Jean Todt is even worse, and
you're an ignorant assh*le for disagreeing with about anything."
There. NICELY back on topic for this newsgroup.
gs
> jerk, Kimi's a boor, Ron Dennis is Satan, Jean Todt is even worse, and
> you're an ignorant assh*le for disagreeing with about anything."
>
> There. NICELY back on topic for this newsgroup.
"disagreeing with about anything"? Does that actually mean anything? Perhaps
you need to increase your meds today.
kuze...@duke.edu
If you are planning to be shitty about my omitting the word "me" in my
original message, let me point out, in the same vein, that you didn't
capitalize the first word of your first sentence. And the question mark,
at least in US usage, goes inside the end quotation mark.
Thanks for keeping this on topic, though!
Raoul Duke
They changed the text of the governing regulation.
>I'll rewrite the next bit as you seem to be missing a few
>essential points:
>
>> because they won't let him run a
>> system which is [illegal but]
You mean: "[Within the letter of the rules}".
>>better than his own [legal] system,
Why was McLaren, and others, then required to change their system
after the second re-write?
>>which he knows [for reasons irrelevant to the
>> question of legality of floors with designed-in degrees
>> of freedom].
You believe the surreptitious transfer of proprietary technical
information from a high level Ferrari employee to no less a McLaren
personage than Ron Dennis to be trivial?
>Yes - with those modifications, you've actually got something
>correct. Congratulations - now try to achieve that without
>requiring wholesale editing of your post.
>
>> And Ferrari never actually runs a system which the FIA nor the
>> stewards have declared illegal beforehand.
>
>No,
Thank you.
>but Whiting declared the technology the Ferrari car won
>a race with illegal afterwards.
No. He banned the system going forward by re-writing the governing
regulation.
>The FIA didn't accuse McLaren of posessing information from
>another team beforehand either.
It was subsequently revealed: McLaren had a spy in Ferrari who
tipped them to Ferrari's floor, and being better than the one they had
they tried to use it.
>What makes you think that prescience is an important factor?
I've said nothing of the sort.
>> ...Right?
>
>You're right that the FIA was unable to look into the future,
>but they clearly made statements about things which were
>in the past, and those statements clearly support Phil's
>post, and negate yours.
>
>You're just another one of the loons. Welcome to the Ferrari
>wankfest in my killfile.
Not back to school yet, are you?
Raoul Duke
Fair enough, but the governing regulation was, twice and rather
specifically.
gs
>> a
>> > jerk, Kimi's a boor, Ron Dennis is Satan, Jean Todt is even worse, and
>> > you're an ignorant assh*le for disagreeing with about anything."
>> >
>> > There. NICELY back on topic for this newsgroup.
>>
>> "disagreeing with about anything"? Does that actually mean anything?
>> Perhaps
>> you need to increase your meds today.
>
> If you are planning to be shitty about my omitting the word "me" in my
> original message, let me point out, in the same vein, that you didn't
> capitalize the first word of your first sentence. And the question mark,
> at least in US usage, goes inside the end quotation mark.
As the area in the quotation marks is taken from your post I did not need
to, though if you like it should have been presented as "[...] disagreeing
with about anything."
> Thanks for keeping this on topic, though!
Well as I'd modified the subject to show it was offtopic so that people can
filter it out as required whats your problem other than trying to be inflame
an argument. Tell me, what is DU's policy on staff using their computers to
make what could be classed as defamatory posts about people?
Raoul Duke
<gp.sk...@NOSPAM.talk21.com> wrote:
>> Do you think you kids could include some marker in your subject lines
>> when you have something more to say than anti-Ferrari groundless
>> contradiction?
>
>How was that for you?
It is patently insufficient, but one supposes you have tried your
best.
>I've not seen you comment on the thousands of anti
>MacLaren posts here or anti Hamilton/Ron Dennis - or are you selective about
>who you try to protect.
Who would be daft enough to slag a well crafted and constructed pram?
Raoul Duke
<gp.sk...@NOSPAM.talk21.com> wrote:
>>> > SORRY! Here, I'll get it back on topic: "Hamilton's a fag, Alonso's
>>> a
>>> > jerk, Kimi's a boor, Ron Dennis is Satan, Jean Todt is even worse, and
>>> > you're an ignorant assh*le for disagreeing with about anything."
>>> >
>>> > There. NICELY back on topic for this newsgroup.
>>>
>>> "disagreeing with about anything"? Does that actually mean anything?
>>> Perhaps
>>> you need to increase your meds today.
>>
>> If you are planning to be shitty about my omitting the word "me" in my
>> original message, let me point out, in the same vein, that you didn't
>> capitalize the first word of your first sentence. And the question mark,
>> at least in US usage, goes inside the end quotation mark.
>
>As the area in the quotation marks is taken from your post I did not need
>to, though if you like it should have been presented as "[...] disagreeing
>with about anything."
>
>> Thanks for keeping this on topic, though!
>
>Well as I'd modified the subject to show it was offtopic so that people can
>filter it out as required
Great, now make that your posting default and we're nearly there.
>whats your problem other than trying to be inflame
>an argument. Tell me, what is DU's policy on staff using their computers to
>make what could be classed as defamatory posts about people?
So you haven't reached "defamatory" in your vocabulary lessons yet?
gs
>>can
>>filter it out as required
> Great, now make that your posting default and we're nearly there.
Well as you obviously don't have that filter in place it would be as
pointless as your posts, please stick me in your killfile and you shall join
the current collection of idiots in mine.
Raoul Duke
Oh, no; you'll not get off that easily!
Phil Newnham
> So...
>
> Dennis gets the rule re-written because they won't let him run a
> system which is better than his own system, which he knows Ferrari are
> running because he has a spy inside Ferrari telling him so.
Charlie Whiting stated "such a device would be clearly illegal". No rule
rewriting required. The rules were changed to address the general
problem that the flexi floor test was completely inadequate, which is
something that we've talked about here loads of times and I agree with -
the flexibility tests are still something of a joke.
> And Ferrari never actually runs a system which the FIA nor the
> stewards have declared illegal beforehand.
>
> ...Right?
The FIA would not have had opportunity to declare it illegal unless they
were shown clear technical drawings and had it explained to them. But it
was claimed by BAR that they had shown clear technical drawings of their
fuel tank system, that was later described as "secretive" by the FIA.
Anyone who's actually put a racecar through scrutineering will tell you
that passing scrutineering and factually legal to the letter and spirit
of the rules is not always the same thing - some things you expect to be
questioned are not, and some things you thought were acceptable will be
criticised.
--
Phil
Ian Dalziel
wrote:
Bollocks. The "governing regulation" remained and remains the same.
--
Ian D
Raoul Duke
You maintain the loads tests were not changed, twice?
...That's remarkable.
Raoul Duke
wrote:
>Raoul Duke wrote:
>> So...
>>
>> Dennis gets the rule re-written because they won't let him run a
>> system which is better than his own system, which he knows Ferrari are
>> running because he has a spy inside Ferrari telling him so.
>
>Charlie Whiting stated "such a device would be clearly illegal".
Context? It could be important.
>No rule
>rewriting required. The rules were changed to address the general
>problem that the flexi floor test was completely inadequate, which is
>something that we've talked about here loads of times and I agree with -
>the flexibility tests are still something of a joke.
You lads seem to have me in the middle of some sort of "gang-tizzy".
One says no re-write, not never not no how, one says yes re-written
but not to ban anything, another says "off you you effing Ferrari
fag".
>> And Ferrari never actually runs a system which the FIA nor the
>> stewards have declared illegal beforehand.
>>
>> ...Right?
>
>The FIA would not have had opportunity to declare it illegal unless they
>were shown clear technical drawings and had it explained to them. But it
>was claimed by BAR that they had shown clear technical drawings of their
>fuel tank system, that was later described as "secretive" by the FIA.
What?
>Anyone who's actually put a racecar through scrutineering will tell you
>that passing scrutineering and factually legal to the letter and spirit
>of the rules is not always the same thing - some things you expect to be
>questioned are not, and some things you thought were acceptable will be
>criticised.
Do try to keep to the matter at hand, that does seem difficult enough.
Ian Dalziel
wrote:
You maintain scrutineering procedure is the "governing regulation"?
That's rem... No, it's just dumb.
--
Ian D
Raoul Duke
You appeal to hollow semantics, rule and governing regulation vs
regulation and "scrutineering procedure", plainly shows the weakness
of your premise.
>That's rem... No, it's just dumb.
Perhaps, some day you'll excise that big chip from your shoulder and
there will be space for your opinion and any others in the room.
Phil Newnham
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:33:13 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnew...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Raoul Duke wrote:
>>> So...
>>>
>>> Dennis gets the rule re-written because they won't let him run a
>>> system which is better than his own system, which he knows Ferrari are
>>> running because he has a spy inside Ferrari telling him so.
>> Charlie Whiting stated "such a device would be clearly illegal".
>
> Context? It could be important.
"The test described in Article 3.17.4 is intended to test the
flexibility of bodywork in that area, not the resistance of a device
fitted for the purpose of allowing the bodywork to move further once the
maximum test load is exceeded.
"Quite clearly, any such device would be designed to permit flexibility
and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical
Regulations."
>> No rule
>> rewriting required. The rules were changed to address the general
>> problem that the flexi floor test was completely inadequate, which is
>> something that we've talked about here loads of times and I agree with -
>> the flexibility tests are still something of a joke.
>
> You lads seem to have me in the middle of some sort of "gang-tizzy".
Well, this is old news, it was discussed in detail at the time.
> One says no re-write, not never not no how, one says yes re-written
> but not to ban anything, another says "off you you effing Ferrari
> fag".
They didn't rewrite the rule governing bodywork. They changed the test
used. In 3.17, it says the FIA reserves the right to change the tests at
any point if they feel that 3.15 is not being respected. In response to
the McLaren design suggestion, they changed the test in a way that isn't
written into the regulations - they demanded that any fixing device such
as was suggested by McLaren be removed prior to testing. That's a
procedural change to catch a cheat, not a rule change.
>>> And Ferrari never actually runs a system which the FIA nor the
>>> stewards have declared illegal beforehand.
>>>
>>> ...Right?
>> The FIA would not have had opportunity to declare it illegal unless they
>> were shown clear technical drawings and had it explained to them. But it
>> was claimed by BAR that they had shown clear technical drawings of their
>> fuel tank system, that was later described as "secretive" by the FIA.
>
> What?
Past history. BAR were banned for running a fuel tank system that was
designed to hold a certain amount of fuel at all times, in order to give
good fuel pressure to the engine. It was never really that clear how
they broke the rules formally, but informally it was claimed to be
understood that the weight limit for the car is a dry weight limit, with
absolutely no fuel even if the car can't use the last 5kg of fuel ever
due to the design. This after the FIA saw the design of the fuel system
pre-season, they ran it for several races, and the scrutineers passed
the car as legal after hearing the explanation that the fuel inside the
pump chamber could not be depleted, as the car would stall. The FIA then
appealed against their own scrutineers, and found the car to be illegal
in a court of appeal. This could not have happened to Ferrari, however,
because their floor was never examined in detail by anyone. McLaren did
not raise an official protest believing it was in the best interest of
the sport that they solve the matter by debate with Charlie - ie. they
thought the device might be ruled legal, in which case they wanted clear
written permission to use it themselves.
--
Phil
Ian Dalziel
wrote:
Scrutineering is used to enforce rules. No part of scrutineering is a
rule. The rules were not changed.
--
Ian D
Raoul Duke
I'll try to relate this to something you might understand: A
jurisdiction decides to make drunk driving within its purview illegal,
the law or the rule, if you will, they define drunkenness to a blood
alcohol content to be =>.1g/ml, the regulation governing the law or
the rule. They then conclude that value isn't strict enough to
achieve their goal of sober drivers and lower the value to be tested
by the regulation to =>.08g/ml.
The regulation was not actually changed? The law, the rule, has not
materially changed?
Parse it any way, substitute layman's or abstract or arcane
terminology with inconsistency and purposeful obtuseness all you will:
Ferrari's floor as used in Australia was not "illegal" until values
were changed and procedures modified, iirc they also insisted upon
mounting philosophy and technology specifically consistent with
McLaren's.
Seemed all a bit to purposeful, to me. And that was before we all
knew about Stepney.
Phil Newnham
> I'll try to relate this to something you might understand: A
> jurisdiction decides to make drunk driving within its purview illegal,
> the law or the rule, if you will, they define drunkenness to a blood
> alcohol content to be =>.1g/ml, the regulation governing the law or
> the rule. They then conclude that value isn't strict enough to
> achieve their goal of sober drivers and lower the value to be tested
> by the regulation to =>.08g/ml.
This analogy is dreadful. Ferrari's floor wasn't illegal because of the
load test, it was illegal because of the designed in flexibility. The
change that disallowed the Ferrari floor was that they changed the test
procedure, requiring the removal of suspicious looking devices before
the test. This change does not appear in any F1 rules document you can
find because it is not a change to the rules. The closest equivalent,
based on your analogy, would be changing the way the breath test is
administered so that you're sure you catch everyone whose alcohol
content exceeds .1g/ml.
--
Phil
Ian Dalziel
wrote:
In that case, it would have been changed.
Let's try another analogy - the regulation is .1g/ml, but some drivers
are testing clean because they have bought electronic jammers which
cause the breathalyzers to misread. The police force issue new
breathalyzers which cannot be circumvented. Drivers who previously
passed the test now fail. The test has changed, the regulation has
not changed.
>Parse it any way, substitute layman's or abstract or arcane
>terminology with inconsistency and purposeful obtuseness all you will:
>Ferrari's floor as used in Australia was not "illegal" until values
>were changed and procedures modified, iirc they also insisted upon
>mounting philosophy and technology specifically consistent with
>McLaren's.
>
It was always illegal. The test was changed so that it could not be
circumvented.
And, just to deal with your little ad hominem, the same thing applies
to the Michelin tyre farrago. If the tyres were too wide after a race,
they were always illegal, whether scrutineering caught that or not.
No chip on my shoulder, as far as I know - there appears to be an
entire fish supper on yours, though.
--
Ian D
Raoul Duke
wrote:
>Raoul Duke wrote:
>> I'll try to relate this to something you might understand: A
>> jurisdiction decides to make drunk driving within its purview illegal,
>> the law or the rule, if you will, they define drunkenness to a blood
>> alcohol content to be =>.1g/ml, the regulation governing the law or
>> the rule. They then conclude that value isn't strict enough to
>> achieve their goal of sober drivers and lower the value to be tested
>> by the regulation to =>.08g/ml.
>
>This analogy is dreadful. Ferrari's floor wasn't illegal because of the
>load test, it was illegal because of the designed in flexibility.
Wasn't McLaren's, and the others, illegal for the very same reasons as
well, until the regulation was changed the second time?
Is there any doubt that the rear wing load tests are due to anything
other than McLaren's, initially, use of designed in flexibility to
circumvent the rule against moveable aero structures several years
ago? Is there any doubt that a wing that meets the current loads test
yet still flexes, as they all do, due to designed in flexibility, is
anything other than legal as the rules stand?
All the objective information indicates Ferrari's floor got banned
because it was better than McLaren's, and the others it would also
appear, at doing the very same thing, something Dennis surreptitiously
knew only via Stepney's subterfuge.
>The
>change that disallowed the Ferrari floor was that they changed the test
>procedure, requiring the removal of suspicious looking devices
As in, 'conformed to McLaren's methodology'?
>before the test. This change does not appear in any F1 rules document you can
>find because it is not a change to the rules.
What? Come again?
"They changed the test procedure, requiring the removal of suspicious
looking devices before the test. This change does not appear in any F1
rules document you can find because it is not a change to the rules."
Is there anything other than your "say so" to base your claims on?
>The closest equivalent,
>based on your analogy, would be changing the way the breath test is
>administered so that you're sure you catch everyone whose alcohol
>content exceeds .1g/ml.
Hardly. The FIA didn't mandate testing implements of greater
precision or sensitivity or accuracy: They changed then numbers and
changed the procedures to normalize the solutions to McLaren's.
Raoul Duke
wrote:
>Raoul Duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:33:13 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnew...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Raoul Duke wrote:
>>>> So...
>>>>
>>>> Dennis gets the rule re-written because they won't let him run a
>>>> system which is better than his own system, which he knows Ferrari are
>>>> running because he has a spy inside Ferrari telling him so.
>>> Charlie Whiting stated "such a device would be clearly illegal".
>>
>> Context? It could be important.
>
>"The test described in Article 3.17.4 is intended to test the
>flexibility of bodywork in that area, not the resistance of a device
>fitted for the purpose of allowing the bodywork to move further once the
>maximum test load is exceeded.
>"Quite clearly, any such device would be designed to permit flexibility
>and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical
>Regulations."
So the solution Dennis presented would have been illegal. Do we know
Dennis presented Ferrari's solution faithfully and unmodified?
Is it not just as "reasonable" to assume they would have used their
own resources to improve the system where they might?
>>> No rule
>>> rewriting required. The rules were changed to address the general
>>> problem that the flexi floor test was completely inadequate, which is
>>> something that we've talked about here loads of times and I agree with -
>>> the flexibility tests are still something of a joke.
>>
>> You lads seem to have me in the middle of some sort of "gang-tizzy".
>
>Well, this is old news, it was discussed in detail at the time.
Apparently generating more heat than light.
>> One says no re-write, not never not no how, one says yes re-written
>> but not to ban anything, another says "off you you effing Ferrari
>> fag".
>
>They didn't rewrite the rule governing bodywork. They changed the test
>used. In 3.17, it says the FIA reserves the right to change the tests at
>any point if they feel that 3.15 is not being respected.
Fair enough, so let's not pretend nothing was actually and materially
changed then, shall we?.
>In response to
>the McLaren design suggestion, they changed the test in a way that isn't
>written into the regulations - they demanded that any fixing device such
>as was suggested by McLaren be removed prior to testing. That's a
>procedural change to catch a cheat, not a rule change.
And again, do we know what Dennis presented was exactly what Stepney
told McLaren and that information was rigorously faithful to Ferrari's
design and engineering?
Do you not yet see the blatant failure in the "Ferrari used an illegal
floor" fallacy?
Relevance?
Phil Newnham
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:08:45 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnew...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Raoul Duke wrote:
>>> I'll try to relate this to something you might understand: A
>>> jurisdiction decides to make drunk driving within its purview illegal,
>>> the law or the rule, if you will, they define drunkenness to a blood
>>> alcohol content to be =>.1g/ml, the regulation governing the law or
>>> the rule. They then conclude that value isn't strict enough to
>>> achieve their goal of sober drivers and lower the value to be tested
>>> by the regulation to =>.08g/ml.
>> This analogy is dreadful. Ferrari's floor wasn't illegal because of the
>> load test, it was illegal because of the designed in flexibility.
>
> Wasn't McLaren's, and the others, illegal for the very same reasons as
> well, until the regulation was changed the second time?
No. McLaren's and the others would have been illegal, left unchanged,
when the test changed. Before the test changed they were legal.
> Is there any doubt that the rear wing load tests are due to anything
> other than McLaren's, initially, use of designed in flexibility to
> circumvent the rule against moveable aero structures several years
> ago?
Potentially. But this is F1 - all the teams try to bend the rules all
the time. If you're correct, then the tests were put in place to catch
McLaren cheating - it doesn't make what they were doing legal, but it
does mean that they could be prevented from doing it. And if McLaren are
prevented from doing something, isn't it in their best interest to
ensure that everyone else is similarly prevented?
> Is there any doubt that a wing that meets the current loads test
> yet still flexes, as they all do, due to designed in flexibility, is
> anything other than legal as the rules stand?
This is incorrect. The flexibility is not designed in - it is inherent
in any structure. The tests limit the flexibility, in theory so that
there is no aerodynamic advantage to be gained. In my opinion the tests
don't go far enough to prove this, but there has to be a pragmatic
solution, because flexibility is unavoidable.
> All the objective information indicates Ferrari's floor got banned
> because it was better than McLaren's, and the others it would also
> appear, at doing the very same thing, something Dennis surreptitiously
> knew only via Stepney's subterfuge.
You've missed the distinction between the way something is attached, and
its own inherent stiffness. The Ferrari floor was attached with a
special type of spring, one designed to resist up to a certain load and
then allow significant flex once that load was exceeded. You can guess
the chosen value of the load. The inherent stiffness of the floor was
not really relevant, and it's this inherent stiffness that is supposed
to be checked for by the load test - same goes for the rear wing, it
would be as if they attached it using a sprung pivot, rather than
securely bolting it.
>> The
>> change that disallowed the Ferrari floor was that they changed the test
>> procedure, requiring the removal of suspicious looking devices
>
> As in, 'conformed to McLaren's methodology'?
>
>> before the test. This change does not appear in any F1 rules document you can
>> find because it is not a change to the rules.
>
> What? Come again?
>
> "They changed the test procedure, requiring the removal of suspicious
> looking devices before the test. This change does not appear in any F1
> rules document you can find because it is not a change to the rules."
>
> Is there anything other than your "say so" to base your claims on?
>
>> The closest equivalent,
>> based on your analogy, would be changing the way the breath test is
>> administered so that you're sure you catch everyone whose alcohol
>> content exceeds .1g/ml.
>
> Hardly. The FIA didn't mandate testing implements of greater
> precision or sensitivity or accuracy: They changed then numbers and
> changed the procedures to normalize the solutions to McLaren's.
>
--
Phil
Phil Newnham
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:08:45 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnew...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> The
>> change that disallowed the Ferrari floor was that they changed the test
>> procedure, requiring the removal of suspicious looking devices
>
> As in, 'conformed to McLaren's methodology'?
Eh? McLaren didn't suggest any change in the test - they proposed to use
the device.
>> before the test. This change does not appear in any F1 rules document you can
>> find because it is not a change to the rules.
>
> What? Come again?
>
> "They changed the test procedure, requiring the removal of suspicious
> looking devices before the test. This change does not appear in any F1
> rules document you can find because it is not a change to the rules."
>
> Is there anything other than your "say so" to base your claims on?
Look at the rules. Look up Charlie's statement in response to McLaren's
letter - it should also be on the FIA website.
>> The closest equivalent,
>> based on your analogy, would be changing the way the breath test is
>> administered so that you're sure you catch everyone whose alcohol
>> content exceeds .1g/ml.
>
> Hardly. The FIA didn't mandate testing implements of greater
> precision or sensitivity or accuracy: They changed then numbers and
> changed the procedures to normalize the solutions to McLaren's.
No. Separate the issues. They ruled the sprung attachment illegal, and
they also changed the load tests because of a general background of
suspicion about the inherent flexibility of the floor of the cars.
--
Phil
Phil Newnham
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:00:32 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnew...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Raoul Duke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:33:13 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnew...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Raoul Duke wrote:
>>>>> So...
>>>>>
>>>>> Dennis gets the rule re-written because they won't let him run a
>>>>> system which is better than his own system, which he knows Ferrari are
>>>>> running because he has a spy inside Ferrari telling him so.
>>>> Charlie Whiting stated "such a device would be clearly illegal".
>>> Context? It could be important.
>> "The test described in Article 3.17.4 is intended to test the
>> flexibility of bodywork in that area, not the resistance of a device
>> fitted for the purpose of allowing the bodywork to move further once the
>> maximum test load is exceeded.
>> "Quite clearly, any such device would be designed to permit flexibility
>> and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical
>> Regulations."
>
> So the solution Dennis presented would have been illegal. Do we know
> Dennis presented Ferrari's solution faithfully and unmodified?
Jean Todt said it was Ferrari's system. Ron Dennis didn't make any such
claim.
> Is it not just as "reasonable" to assume they would have used their
> own resources to improve the system where they might?
Not if the boss of Ferrari says it's recognisably their system copied, no.
>>>> No rule
>>>> rewriting required. The rules were changed to address the general
>>>> problem that the flexi floor test was completely inadequate, which is
>>>> something that we've talked about here loads of times and I agree with -
>>>> the flexibility tests are still something of a joke.
>>> You lads seem to have me in the middle of some sort of "gang-tizzy".
>> Well, this is old news, it was discussed in detail at the time.
>
> Apparently generating more heat than light.
Your inability to follow the complexities aren't my problem.
>>> One says no re-write, not never not no how, one says yes re-written
>>> but not to ban anything, another says "off you you effing Ferrari
>>> fag".
>> They didn't rewrite the rule governing bodywork. They changed the test
>> used. In 3.17, it says the FIA reserves the right to change the tests at
>> any point if they feel that 3.15 is not being respected.
>
> Fair enough, so let's not pretend nothing was actually and materially
> changed then, shall we?.
Rule 3.15 was certainly not changed.
>> In response to
>> the McLaren design suggestion, they changed the test in a way that isn't
>> written into the regulations - they demanded that any fixing device such
>> as was suggested by McLaren be removed prior to testing. That's a
>> procedural change to catch a cheat, not a rule change.
>
> And again, do we know what Dennis presented was exactly what Stepney
> told McLaren and that information was rigorously faithful to Ferrari's
> design and engineering?
Jean Todt said it was. That's enough for me, he knows the Ferrari
designs better than I do.
>> Past history. BAR were banned for running a fuel tank system that was
>> designed to hold a certain amount of fuel at all times, in order to give
>> good fuel pressure to the engine. It was never really that clear how
>> they broke the rules formally, but informally it was claimed to be
>> understood that the weight limit for the car is a dry weight limit, with
>> absolutely no fuel even if the car can't use the last 5kg of fuel ever
>> due to the design. This after the FIA saw the design of the fuel system
>> pre-season, they ran it for several races, and the scrutineers passed
>> the car as legal after hearing the explanation that the fuel inside the
>> pump chamber could not be depleted, as the car would stall. The FIA then
>> appealed against their own scrutineers, and found the car to be illegal
>> in a court of appeal. This could not have happened to Ferrari, however,
>> because their floor was never examined in detail by anyone. McLaren did
>> not raise an official protest believing it was in the best interest of
>> the sport that they solve the matter by debate with Charlie - ie. they
>> thought the device might be ruled legal, in which case they wanted clear
>> written permission to use it themselves.
>
> Relevance?
To your claim that if the scrutineers don't spot something, then the car
must be legal.
--
Phil
Raoul Duke
That's not at all analogous: The force in the static loads test was
change, as well changing the methodology to specifically outlaw one
specific solution. That's not only analogous to a change in tested
BAC but to requiring everyone to have been in the same bar, drinking
the same drink, eating the same amount and type of food.
>>Parse it any way, substitute layman's or abstract or arcane
>>terminology with inconsistency and purposeful obtuseness all you will:
>>Ferrari's floor as used in Australia was not "illegal" until values
>>were changed and procedures modified, iirc they also insisted upon
>>mounting philosophy and technology specifically consistent with
>>McLaren's.
>
>It was always illegal. The test was changed so that it could not be
>circumvented.
No... Floors still flexed, floors still flex, only less.
>And, just to deal with your little ad hominem,
To wit?
>the same thing applies
>to the Michelin tyre farrago. If the tyres were too wide after a race,
>they were always illegal, whether scrutineering caught that or not.
I don't doubt it. Who would? And where's the relevance?
The Michelin's weren't subject to a changed dimension or a requirement
that they be constructed in any particular way, simply that they never
exceed a specified dimension.
>No chip on my shoulder, as far as I know - there appears to be an
>entire fish supper on yours, though.
Is it that I don't accede to the conventional "wisdom"?
Clyde Penquin
> <SNIP NONE F1 RELATED STUFF>
>
> Could you have the manners to mark your posts if they are off topic, this is
> a F1 newsgroup.
You know, Skinner me dear old lad, your life has been blighted, and it's
not your fault.
I mean, if only your mother had been more skeptical, when that porno
film director told her that the baboon could not get her pregnant, you
might have wound up a better sort of person.
Post your delivery address and I'll send you a stalk of bananas and a
bottle of Thorazine, OK?
--Your pal, Clyde
Dave Baker
"Clyde Penquin" <ClydeP...@earthspring.org> wrote in message
news:13og2rn...@corp.supernews.com...
If you were into cryptic crosswords you'd know it's a hand or a bunch of
bananas depending on the quantity.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines
Clyde Penquin
>> Post your delivery address and I'll send you a stalk of bananas and a
>> bottle of Thorazine, OK?
>
> If you were into cryptic crosswords you'd know it's a hand or a bunch of
> bananas depending on the quantity.
"A single banana stem has a short life, producing a stalk of bananas in
about 18 months in ideal soil and climate. With less than a perfect
environment, ..." Reference:
www.desert-tropicals.com/Plants/Musaceae/Musa_acuminata.html
I don't have Skinner's familiarity with them, of course. And I wouldn't
be honest if I told you that banana morphology is an interest of mine.
But I *am* delighted for an excuse to keep the subject line alive for a
bit. :-)
--Clyde, hoping for a test-drive with Force India (I can't drive
worth a darn, but I DO love chana masala)
gs
>> make what could be classed as defamatory posts about people?
>
> Better yet, why don't you complain to DU about it?
It was curiosity, I know of quite a few companies (and educational
establishments) that would be unhappy about those sort of posts from their
systems (I also know companies that could not care less what employees used
the computers for ;-) ).
gs
sending yours. However you are obviously a plonker and now reside in my
killfile reserved for those posters who are both simple and a waste of time.
Raoul Duke
[Blah blah blah blah blah...]
The upshot is there is no reasoned basis to claim Ferrari ran an
illegal floor last year, ever - never mind all season, as their system
was never at issue.
McLaren proposed using a system based on information they received
from their "mole" in Ferrari (you'd imagine there would be a rule and
sanction against that) which was judged to be outside the bounds of
the intent and letter of the regulations, which were then changed to
reflect these concerns, regulations Ferrari were never then in breach
of.
Clearly opinions here have ossified in the absence of fact, some
clearly in spite of fact, but that probably deserves its own
discussion, which I have no doubt would then be fraught with even
greater narrowness of mind and entrenched bitterness.
Roll on 2008, let's see what McLaren have left in store to amuse us.
Raoul Duke
wrote:
>Raoul Duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:08:45 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnew...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> The
>>> change that disallowed the Ferrari floor was that they changed the test
>>> procedure, requiring the removal of suspicious looking devices
>>
>> As in, 'conformed to McLaren's methodology'?
>
>Eh? McLaren didn't suggest any change in the test - they proposed to use
>the device.
/A/ device. We do not know what Ferrari were actually doing.
>>> before the test. This change does not appear in any F1 rules document you can
>>> find because it is not a change to the rules.
>>
>> What? Come again?
>>
>> "They changed the test procedure, requiring the removal of suspicious
>> looking devices before the test. This change does not appear in any F1
>> rules document you can find because it is not a change to the rules."
>>
>> Is there anything other than your "say so" to base your claims on?
>
>Look at the rules. Look up Charlie's statement in response to McLaren's
>letter - it should also be on the FIA website.
Ah... 'Read between the lines to divine the secret meaning'.
>>> The closest equivalent,
>>> based on your analogy, would be changing the way the breath test is
>>> administered so that you're sure you catch everyone whose alcohol
>>> content exceeds .1g/ml.
>>
>> Hardly. The FIA didn't mandate testing implements of greater
>> precision or sensitivity or accuracy: They changed then numbers and
>> changed the procedures to normalize the solutions to McLaren's.
>
>No. Separate the issues. They ruled the sprung attachment illegal, and
>they also changed the load tests because of a general background of
>suspicion about the inherent flexibility of the floor of the cars.
In effect and actuality they normalized the engineering, presumably to
McLaren's pre-Stepney solution, and then changed the numbers to make
that better comply with the intent of the rules.
Phil Newnham
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:19:08 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnew...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Raoul Duke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:08:45 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnew...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> The
>>>> change that disallowed the Ferrari floor was that they changed the test
>>>> procedure, requiring the removal of suspicious looking devices
>>> As in, 'conformed to McLaren's methodology'?
>> Eh? McLaren didn't suggest any change in the test - they proposed to use
>> the device.
>
> /A/ device. We do not know what Ferrari were actually doing.
According to Jean Todt, they were using the device described by McLaren,
which they said McLaren had stolen from them using Stepney as their spy.
>>>> before the test. This change does not appear in any F1 rules document you can
>>>> find because it is not a change to the rules.
>>> What? Come again?
>>>
>>> "They changed the test procedure, requiring the removal of suspicious
>>> looking devices before the test. This change does not appear in any F1
>>> rules document you can find because it is not a change to the rules."
>>>
>>> Is there anything other than your "say so" to base your claims on?
>> Look at the rules. Look up Charlie's statement in response to McLaren's
>> letter - it should also be on the FIA website.
>
> Ah... 'Read between the lines to divine the secret meaning'.
How about simply reading the lines? ICBA to trawl through the FIA
website to find them for you.
>>>> The closest equivalent,
>>>> based on your analogy, would be changing the way the breath test is
>>>> administered so that you're sure you catch everyone whose alcohol
>>>> content exceeds .1g/ml.
>>> Hardly. The FIA didn't mandate testing implements of greater
>>> precision or sensitivity or accuracy: They changed then numbers and
>>> changed the procedures to normalize the solutions to McLaren's.
>> No. Separate the issues. They ruled the sprung attachment illegal, and
>> they also changed the load tests because of a general background of
>> suspicion about the inherent flexibility of the floor of the cars.
>
> In effect and actuality they normalized the engineering, presumably to
> McLaren's pre-Stepney solution, and then changed the numbers to make
> that better comply with the intent of the rules.
They stated clearly that McLaren's suggested device was illegal. And
then because there was a lot of discussion and debate about flexible
floors, they went further and made the tests tougher to answer the
criticism that the tests weren't strong enough.
--
Phil
Phil Newnham
> [Blah blah blah blah blah...]
>
> The upshot is there is no reasoned basis to claim Ferrari ran an
> illegal floor last year, ever - never mind all season, as their system
> was never at issue.
Rubbish.
> McLaren proposed using a system based on information they received
> from their "mole" in Ferrari (you'd imagine there would be a rule and
> sanction against that) which was judged to be outside the bounds of
> the intent and letter of the regulations, which were then changed to
> reflect these concerns, regulations Ferrari were never then in breach
> of.
If the device was outside the letter of the regulations, then no change
in the regulations was required to make it illegal. You've defeated your
own argument in one paragraph.
--
Phil
Raoul Duke
wrote:
>Raoul Duke wrote:
>> [Blah blah blah blah blah...]
>>
>> The upshot is there is no reasoned basis to claim Ferrari ran an
>> illegal floor last year, ever - never mind all season, as their system
>> was never at issue.
>
>Rubbish.
Why do you fear reason?
>> McLaren proposed using a system based on information they received
>> from their "mole" in Ferrari (you'd imagine there would be a rule and
>> sanction against that) which was judged to be outside the bounds of
>> the intent and letter of the regulations, which were then changed to
>> reflect these concerns, regulations Ferrari were never then in breach
>> of.
>
>If the device was outside the letter of the regulations, then no change
>in the regulations was required to make it illegal.
Did I say anything to the contrary?
As you yourself wrote: "They stated clearly that McLaren's suggested
device was illegal. And then because there was a lot of discussion and
debate about flexible floors, they went further and made the tests
tougher to answer the criticism that the tests weren't strong enough."
>You've defeated your own argument in one paragraph.
[SNIGGER]
Why don't you address the subject under discussion?
The fact remains, it was McLaren's device which was declared illegal,
never Ferrari's.
Raoul Duke
wrote:
>Raoul Duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:19:08 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnew...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Raoul Duke wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:08:45 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnew...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> The
>>>>> change that disallowed the Ferrari floor was that they changed the test
>>>>> procedure, requiring the removal of suspicious looking devices
>>>> As in, 'conformed to McLaren's methodology'?
>>> Eh? McLaren didn't suggest any change in the test - they proposed to use
>>> the device.
>>
>> /A/ device. We do not know what Ferrari were actually doing.
>
>According to Jean Todt, they were using the device described by McLaren,
>which they said McLaren had stolen from them using Stepney as their spy.
Cite?
Phil Newnham
If Pitpass had a decent way to access their news archives I'd hunt for
it - as it is, searching for Jean Todt + floor will probably produce
rather too many hits to be arsed going through. Sorry.
--
Phil
Phil Newnham
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:55:34 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnew...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Raoul Duke wrote:
>>> [Blah blah blah blah blah...]
>>>
>>> The upshot is there is no reasoned basis to claim Ferrari ran an
>>> illegal floor last year, ever - never mind all season, as their system
>>> was never at issue.
>> Rubbish.
>
> Why do you fear reason?
I don't fear reason. I am getting a bit irritated by your way after the
facts argument of half-truths.
>>> McLaren proposed using a system based on information they received
>>> from their "mole" in Ferrari (you'd imagine there would be a rule and
>>> sanction against that) which was judged to be outside the bounds of
>>> the intent and letter of the regulations, which were then changed to
>>> reflect these concerns, regulations Ferrari were never then in breach
>>> of.
>> If the device was outside the letter of the regulations, then no change
>> in the regulations was required to make it illegal.
>
> Did I say anything to the contrary?
Yes. You appear to think the rules were changed to outlaw Ferrari's floor.
> As you yourself wrote: "They stated clearly that McLaren's suggested
> device was illegal. And then because there was a lot of discussion and
> debate about flexible floors, they went further and made the tests
> tougher to answer the criticism that the tests weren't strong enough."
>
>> You've defeated your own argument in one paragraph.
>
> [SNIGGER]
>
> Why don't you address the subject under discussion?
>
> The fact remains, it was McLaren's device which was declared illegal,
> never Ferrari's.
So, if it was McLaren's device, why were Ferrari so upset about it? Why
has it been repeatedly described as the floor Ferrari ran by Ian Mills
(McLaren's lawyer, read the July WMSC transcript) and Nigel Stepney and
Jean Todt? Why, if it was not the Ferrari device, would Ferrari claim
that it was clear evidence of guilt on the part of McLaren and that they
obtained it by spying?
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=32269
--
Phil
Phil Newnham
me for that reason which I only discover afterwards." But I believe, not
that it shocked him for the reasons which were found afterwards, but that
these reasons were only found because it shocked him.
277. The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know. We feel it in a
thousand things. I say that the heart naturally loves the Universal Being,
and also itself naturally, according as it gives itself to them; and it
hardens itself against one or the other at its will. You have rejected the
one and kept the other. Is it by reason that you love yourself?
278. It is the heart which experiences God, and not the reason. This, then,
is faith: God felt by the heart, not by the reason.
Faith is a gift of God; do not believe that we said it was a gift of
reasoning. Other religions do not say this of their faith. They only give
reasoning in order to arrive at it, and yet it does not bring them to it.
279. Faith is a gift of God; do not believe that we said it was a gift of
reasoning. Other religions do not say this of their faith. They only gave
reasoning in order to arrive at it, and yet it does not bring them to it.
280. The knowledge of God is very far from the love of Him.
281. Heart, instinct, principles.
282. We know truth, not only by the reason, but also by the heart, and it is
in this last way that we know first principles; and reason, which has no
part in it, tries in vain to impugn them. The sceptics, who have only this
for their object, labour to no purpose. We know that we do not dream, and,
however impossible it is for us to prove it by reason, this inability
demonstrates only the weakness of our reason, but not, as they affirm, the
uncertainty of all our knowledge. For the knowledge of first principles, as
space, time, motion, number
Phil Carmody
It was probably mentioned here on rasf1 at the time.
I certainly remember seeing a quote like that a while
back, but don't read _any_ sporting websites at all,
so it must have been from here.
But this new poster is evidently just yet another troll;
just killfile him - you know you want to.
Phil
--
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
-- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration
RdKetchup
New poster? That seems to be quite clearly the latest morph of MJF (if
is .sig suddenly start using a non standard delimiter we'll know for sure).
Phil Carmody
> New poster? That seems to be quite clearly the latest morph of MJF
> (if is .sig suddenly start using a non standard delimiter we'll know
> for sure).
It's a long while since I paid any attention to an MJF post,
as he landed in my killfile almost immediately. To be honest,
I don't even know what other nyms he's used. None get seen
for very long at all, so they all just get forgotten about.
As the tifauxi all spew the same inane codswallop, I barely
know which one's which now.
He evidently has nothing of worth to contribute to this group
except ludicrous trolls. Unfortunately, the less-strong-willed
in the group seem to keep biting. The killfile's the only
sensible solution.
gs
> except ludicrous trolls. Unfortunately, the less-strong-willed
> in the group seem to keep biting. The killfile's the only
> sensible solution.
This group is much easier to browse after I increased the number of
occupants in my killfile ;-)
Bob Dubery
> Raoul Duke wrote:
> > [Blah blah blah blah blah...]
>
> > The upshot is there is no reasoned basis to claim Ferrari ran an
> > illegal floor last year, ever - never mind all season, as their system
> > was never at issue.
>
> Rubbish.
Absolutely. There is a difference, which some people either can't
grasp or don't want to acknowledge, between "running illegal parts and
not being caught" and "being legal".