F1 Ferrari accused of cheating
03-21-2007, 01:59 PM
#31
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Nano
Mclaren was the team who brought the system under scrutiny.
03-21-2007, 02:14 PM
#32
Formula One Spin Doctor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Nano
You analysis is interesting, but you make it sound worse than it really is. It's perfectly normal, F1 is the foremost motorsport event in the world, image marketing, self preservation and basic economic strategies are to be expected. If ALMS one days reaches the grandeur of F1, same thing will happen there. These "manipulations" as you call them, occur in evey series in the world, they just don't have the scale or coverage that F1 has.
Also, Luis didn't win because he drove worse than Alonso, simple and evident. He Made a few blatant errors and was actually lucky not to spin. He was held up in the pits by an unfortunate circumstance, and Alonso passed him. Expect to see other mistakes from Luis in the following GPs.
As for Ferrari, they were the team most penalized with the rule changes of 2005. They went from a 15/18 wins in 2004 to 1/19 wins in 2005. On them never being penalized on other technical/strategic decisions, it's another pointless discussion. It's like saying someone is a crook because he never went to jail. There is no substantiating evidence that FIA ruled differently for Ferrari than it did for any others. FIA ruling does seem inconsistent at times(especially with the top teams), this was true for Williams, Mclaren, Renault, Lotus, and others. But I don't beliee FIA, the stewards, the international court of appeals or the world motorsport council ruled with bias, or manipulated results in any of those circumstances as well. They did make a few bad calls, but I wouldn't call it bias, just bad decisions and incompetence. (be it noted that a lot of F1 rules never were set in stone, this is a charachteristc of F1, and it has been consistent with rulings on different teams and drivers)
Also, Luis didn't win because he drove worse than Alonso, simple and evident. He Made a few blatant errors and was actually lucky not to spin. He was held up in the pits by an unfortunate circumstance, and Alonso passed him. Expect to see other mistakes from Luis in the following GPs.
As for Ferrari, they were the team most penalized with the rule changes of 2005. They went from a 15/18 wins in 2004 to 1/19 wins in 2005. On them never being penalized on other technical/strategic decisions, it's another pointless discussion. It's like saying someone is a crook because he never went to jail. There is no substantiating evidence that FIA ruled differently for Ferrari than it did for any others. FIA ruling does seem inconsistent at times(especially with the top teams), this was true for Williams, Mclaren, Renault, Lotus, and others. But I don't beliee FIA, the stewards, the international court of appeals or the world motorsport council ruled with bias, or manipulated results in any of those circumstances as well. They did make a few bad calls, but I wouldn't call it bias, just bad decisions and incompetence. (be it noted that a lot of F1 rules never were set in stone, this is a charachteristc of F1, and it has been consistent with rulings on different teams and drivers)
along with the threat of pulling out.
03-21-2007, 02:16 PM
#33
Formula One Spin Doctor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Nano
that's not exactly it. The Damper was first deemed legal by the stewards. Fia appealed the rulling of the stewards, the international court of appeal ruled in favor of FIA as the damper was an infringement to the technical regulations regarding aerodymaic influence. It should also be noted that when the mass damper was made illegal, 7 teams were using it, including Ferrari. Mclaren was the team who brought the system under scrutiny.
Ferrari did not lose any competitive edge by not using it , unlike renault whose chassis was completely designed around the damper ...
03-21-2007, 02:19 PM
#34
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Piacenza, Italy - Montreal, Canada
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tough luck for them
Mclaren was the only one not using one, they claimed their car didn't need one.
Renault was the first to introduce it, and had the most research behind it. Ferrari had one. (there is a lot of technical mumbo-jumbo about the damper, and what it does, and how it does it, and how advanced and integrated the renault system was... I'll leave that out of the equation)
Mclaren gained nothing, Ferrari lost a few tenths, Renault lost a few more. Ferrari was obviously happy about the ban, mclaren wasn't their competitor, Renault was. Typical F1 drama.
Mclaren was the only one not using one, they claimed their car didn't need one.
Renault was the first to introduce it, and had the most research behind it. Ferrari had one. (there is a lot of technical mumbo-jumbo about the damper, and what it does, and how it does it, and how advanced and integrated the renault system was... I'll leave that out of the equation)
Mclaren gained nothing, Ferrari lost a few tenths, Renault lost a few more. Ferrari was obviously happy about the ban, mclaren wasn't their competitor, Renault was. Typical F1 drama.
03-21-2007, 02:26 PM
#35
Formula One Spin Doctor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Nano
tough luck for them
Mclaren was the only one not using one, they claimed their car didn't need one.
Renault was the first to introduce it, and had the most research behind it. Ferrari had one.
Ferrari was happy about the ban, mclaren wasn't their competitor, Renault was. Mclaren gained nothing, Ferrari lost a few tenths, Renault lost a few more. You blame them?
Typical F1 drama
Mclaren was the only one not using one, they claimed their car didn't need one.
Renault was the first to introduce it, and had the most research behind it. Ferrari had one.
Ferrari was happy about the ban, mclaren wasn't their competitor, Renault was. Mclaren gained nothing, Ferrari lost a few tenths, Renault lost a few more. You blame them?
Typical F1 drama
But what if the damper was Ferrari's ace in the hole , do you think it would have been banned? Me thinks not ! regardless of who else was crying ....
03-21-2007, 02:33 PM
#36
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Piacenza, Italy - Montreal, Canada
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speculations, you are putting intentions on trial. The allegations are anecdotal at best. Renault won driver and championship title, and to tell the truth, I don't think the MD was of such crucial importance.
03-21-2007, 02:37 PM
#37
Administrator - "Tyson"
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
BMW has joined the fun:
BMW also implicated in new cheating row
Alongside Ferrari, it has emerged that German squad BMW-Sauber is also implicated in F1's new controversy about allegedly moveable floors.
It has been reported that the under-bodies of the teams' single seaters, which may lower at speed to give an unfair performance advantage in a straight line, came under scrutiny by rivals and the governing body in Australia.
The FIA did not answer a request for comment.
Alongside Ferrari, it has emerged that German squad BMW-Sauber is also implicated in F1's new controversy about allegedly moveable floors.
It has been reported that the under-bodies of the teams' single seaters, which may lower at speed to give an unfair performance advantage in a straight line, came under scrutiny by rivals and the governing body in Australia.
The FIA did not answer a request for comment.
03-21-2007, 02:49 PM
#38
Race Director
In the case of the mass damper, not only did the scru crew deem it legal, but before a car was designed around/with it, Charlie Whiting deemed it legal. That's not the first time something like that has happened involving Charlie Whiting. I don't think that it's because he's an idiot. I think it's because Max or Bernie want to change the rules to favor or disfavor a team. BTW, I can't think of one time that Ferrari has been at the short end of that equation.
03-21-2007, 02:52 PM
#39
Formula One Spin Doctor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Geo
In the case of the mass damper, not only did the scru crew deem it legal, but before a car was designed around/with it, Charlie Whiting deemed it legal. That's not the first time something like that has happened involving Charlie Whiting. I don't think that it's because he's an idiot. I think it's because Max or Bernie want to change the rules to favor or disfavor a team. BTW, I can't think of one time that Ferrari has been at the short end of that equation.
03-21-2007, 02:55 PM
#40
King of Cool
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by MJSpeed
The mass damper wasn't illegal when developed, but the rules were change half-way through to make it so.
As for Ferrari being the darling in F1's eye, well it is. As for F1 fixing results, NOT true. Having said that I'll say this, some rule changes throughout the years do seem to favor them more than any other team...let the conspiracy theories fly!!
There's a very thin line between innovation and cheating...the definition of which is which is left up to the engineers' interpretations.
Enjoy F1 with its "faults" and all. Remember the alternative is IRL, ChampCar and NASCAR (with the "CAR OF TOMORROW!!").
As for Ferrari being the darling in F1's eye, well it is. As for F1 fixing results, NOT true. Having said that I'll say this, some rule changes throughout the years do seem to favor them more than any other team...let the conspiracy theories fly!!
There's a very thin line between innovation and cheating...the definition of which is which is left up to the engineers' interpretations.
Enjoy F1 with its "faults" and all. Remember the alternative is IRL, ChampCar and NASCAR (with the "CAR OF TOMORROW!!").
I personally wouldn't want F1 any other way, spec series as you mention above are too much spec series for my taste and biggest thing in motorsport I hate is the "competition adjustment" in a way they are used here in US in Rolex and ALMS series. I can take the weight penalty as it is used in DTM (and in Speed Challenge, I think) when the winner gets certain amount of weight etc.
But the way it's used on Rolex & ALMS sucks. i.e. when Alex Job prepares, tunes & adjusts their car the best and have the fastests drivers, in next race all the Porsches will have restrictor, weight penalty or whatever. That creates ton of stupid lobbying, sand bagging etc.
Just give min. weight, max engine size (and general size etc. rules) and let them figure out how to make it faster.
03-21-2007, 03:20 PM
#41
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Piacenza, Italy - Montreal, Canada
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by A.Wayne
precisely the point i'm trying to make and i'm going back 30 yrs........
Personally, I knew the MD would have been banned, before it got to court. I would have been amazed otherwise. There were precedents and a long list of banned tech bits that did exactly what renault was trying to achieve. I do not agree with the timing of the ban, but that is another story...
Last edited by Nano; 03-21-2007 at 03:57 PM.
03-21-2007, 04:00 PM
#43
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Piacenza, Italy - Montreal, Canada
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems like BMW is under scrutiny too
"Alongside Ferrari, it has emerged that German squad BMW-Sauber is also implicated in F1’s new controversy about allegedly moveable floors.
It has been reported that the under-bodies of the teams’ single seaters, which may lower at speed to give an unfair performance advantage in a straight line, came under scrutiny by rivals and the governing body in Australia.
The FIA did not answer a request for comment."
"Alongside Ferrari, it has emerged that German squad BMW-Sauber is also implicated in F1’s new controversy about allegedly moveable floors.
It has been reported that the under-bodies of the teams’ single seaters, which may lower at speed to give an unfair performance advantage in a straight line, came under scrutiny by rivals and the governing body in Australia.
The FIA did not answer a request for comment."
03-21-2007, 04:57 PM
#44
Race Director
Originally Posted by Nano
Let's turn it this way. To you, by the rules, is the mass damper legal? (consider even Renault admitted it had an aerodynamic influence) And do you believe blatantly cheating is productive? (to a particular team, or even to F1 in general). Claiming tech matters on what team/driver someone prefers shows a total lack of understanding of how rigorous technical aspect are in Formula 1 (beside a total lack of understanding of the technical aspects themselves).
Shoot, everything on an F1 car has an aerodynamic influence, including the bloody driver (remember when Scummie used to drive down the straights with his head cocked to one side?).
03-21-2007, 05:27 PM
#45
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Piacenza, Italy - Montreal, Canada
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aerodynamic influence in the sense of article 3.15 of the F1 regulations. Not what influences aerodynamics. How Renault presented its case in court, I think they had no choice but to ban the device. I don't think renault was blatantly cheating, they just took it too far. And beside the damper altering aerodynamics, there was the issue of moveable ballast. It just was wrong on too many points, that had already been dealt with in the past.
Last edited by Nano; 03-21-2007 at 05:44 PM.