Reply to Thread

Post a reply to the thread: On BMW being disqualified from Canadian GP:

Your Message

Click here to log in

Please correctly re-type the phrase f o o t d o c t o r in the form box. Re-type it without the extra spaces and put the one space where it should be. We apologize for having to do this but this silliness helps slow the spammers.

 

Additional Options

Topic Review (Newest First)

  • 06-16-2004, 08:31 PM
    Mark M

    Personally, rules should be locked for the season.

    The FIA and its dictators, Ecelstone and Mosley, should not be altering rules mid stride. The idea of rules is to set the stage for the sport and its game length. Would an official at the Super Bowl change the rules on holding or on punt returns at the end of the 3rd quarter? The answer is Heck No!! Rules should be thought out and planned, then locked for the length of the game. In our case that game length is the 18 races on the schedule.

    This B.S. of changing rules mid stride forces teams to be puppets and change engineering practices (Michlinegate), change strategies (qualifying), among other things. In recent seasons we have had way too many stupid rule changes, qualifying is just one of many!

    This sport is becoming too complex to follow. Everytime I tune in I feel I need to first check up on the latest rule ammendments :)

    Mark M
  • 06-16-2004, 01:26 PM
    Jim Derrig 93 750

    Well . . .

    I agree with your observations about phony yellow flags [NASCAR is motivated by safety . . . right] but I'm not sure the analogy holds with "michelingate." Think about it. Both championships were neck-and-neck, with 3 races to go and Ferrari slightly behind. One of the next tracks (Monza) favored the F2003. The next (Indy) favored the Williams. This created a real possibility of it all coming down to the final race, to be held at one of the most exciting tracks in the world.

    Does it get any better than that? Why put up a phony yellow flag? And didn't the flag ultimately make Japan pretty much a moot exercise?

    So while I agree the FIA should have allowed Michelin to continue through the rest of the season, I can't agree that the FIA was motivated by a "phony yellow flag" mentality. I think they just made a bad decision. If one wants to believe they did so to guarentee another championship to the red team, so be it, but I prefer simple stupidiy to complicity.
  • 06-15-2004, 10:06 AM
    Ed_Healey

    The damned grooves shouldn't be there in the first

    place! Silly way of reducing the contact patch whilst retaining the wide tyres that everybody likes to see.
  • 06-14-2004, 08:53 PM
    arig

    well, if they see a problem in the rules, why wait

    to fix them? going by the same token to wait til the end of the season, then the qualifying format should not be changed until next year, not at silverstone or hockenheim where it is supposed to be altered.

    i think you have failed to remember when schumacher was stripped of his 2nd place finish in the championship in 1997 after a collision with jacques villeneuve who won the world championship. i dont think that the fia was "cheating" for schumacher there.

    it's a demo. so guess what the details are.
    20% Tint
    <img src="http://members.roadfly.com/arig/new%20new%20version%20sig%20copy.jpg">
  • 06-14-2004, 08:20 PM
    M3Richard

    Good observation as to the use of rain tires in

    subsequent races. A different wrinkle would be to consider the impact the change had on the preparation and efforts of the affected teams. What did it do? Obviously, we'll never know.

    The thing that some miss is that F1, as the supposed pinnacle of the sport, attempts to maintain the "integrity" of the competition in the way its race rules are applied. In US racing , the near-universal practice is to use yellow flags to bunch the field for every on-track occurence (major and minor), enabling artifically bunched fields and bogus "10 lap sprints to the finish" Even Indy once "paced" drivers via lights during caution periods, allowing a leader to maintain the lead earned before the caution. No more. It's as if football were constructed to assure every game ends with an attempted last second scoring drive or if baseball were managed to assure every game was decided with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th. When these things happen, it's special. So should a last lap battle for the win.

    In F1, the Safety Car is only deployed for situations where a car is stopped in a dangerous position, or (like last year) when some deranged spectator runs on the track. Red Flag situations occur only when the track is essentially blocked or when a serious injury has occured, requiring a substantial effort by the safety team. Issues of minor debris and/or a little fluid on the track, etc. that result in the endless caution periods in US racing are absent- F1 presumes that if you're good enough to "be there" you're good enough to avoid small hazards on the track and/or smart enough to pay attention to the warning flags. A hard fought lead should not be arbitarirly taken away by some minor incident, yet in racing today it almost always is. The need for spectacle overrules the fact that this is supposed to be sport.

    That's why the FIA/Ferrari/Michelin fiasco annoys me. Call it a "creative advantage" Michelin found. Taking away an advantage that was housed in a long term practice, that had been ruled acceptable dozens of times for mutiple teams in a years-plus worth of races is no different than a bogus NASCAB caution for "debris." If the rule was to be interpreted differently, it should have been at the start of the next full season.



    RichardM///3
    Delaware USA
    02'M36 Speed, 1/02 Build
    Alpine White/Imola Red Leather
    "Life is too short not to drive an ///M"
  • 06-14-2004, 07:56 PM
    The Reverend Doctor Paul Slim

    There\'s more to your #2...

    Rules aren't there just to prevent unfair advantage. They're also there for safety. I'm not saying this is the case here, but they have to come down on rules violations hard to keep the cars safe.
  • 06-14-2004, 07:15 PM
    Jim Derrig 93 750

    I agree except . . .

    I wouldn't even call it a "loophole." At best it was an area not addressed directly by the regs and which, as a matter of longstanding procedure, had been applied/intepreted in the fashion Michelin was applying and interpreting it. I believe tire measurements were made only at the beginning of the race for much, much longer than a year, and the only requirement thus was that the tire be a specific width at the race's start. Since the tire is expected to deform/change significantly during the race (unlike, say the engine or the CPU or the skid block) this was a logical interpretation. Changing it midseason was, indeed, unfair.

    (Hmmm. . . I wonder if anybody from the FIA grabbed Mark Webber's right front after his collision with Klein and made sure that the tire hadn't deformed to greater than allowed widths or heights? After all, if the tire is to remain in compliance AT ALL TIMES . . . ;)

    In any event, my guess is that considering that 2 of the 3 next races were on tracks greatly favoring the F2003 and that the U.S.G.P. ended up being run in the rain, which also heavily favored the Ferraristone, the ultimate results were not effected.
  • 06-14-2004, 05:52 PM
    M3Richard

    Michelin found a loophole in the way the rules

    were being intepreted. Measurements were taken BEFORE the tire was used, not after. For over one year, the FIA used this method to determine if tires were legal.
    Then in latter part of the season, at the demand of Ferrari (who were being subjected to intense pressure from both MacLaren AND Williams- both Michelin runners), the manner in which the tires were evaluated was changed, to Ferrari's and Bridgestone's benefit.
    This type of decision is contrary to what F1 is "supposed to be about" which is driving and engineering excellence at the highest level. This type of decision is appropriate to series such as NASCAR- which blatently manipulates the rules EVERYTIME a competitor finds an advantage; or SCCA World Challenge and its notion of "success penalties" in the form of extra ballest.
    Michelin found a loophole, it's true. The FIA arbitrarily changed the rules in the middle of the season- what had been common, acceptable and legal for over a year was, in the stroke of a pen, made illegal because Marinello held their breath and stamped their feet. Michelin, Williams and MacLaren (among others) make long-term engineering decisions decisions based upon the manner in which a rule had been applied FOR OVER A 12 MONTH PERIOD, then had the rug pulled out from under them. The equitable thing to do would have been to change the process at year end. Instead, the FIA made a decision that effectively handed the drivers and manufactorers titles to Ferrari.

    RichardM///3
    Delaware USA
    02'M36 Speed, 1/02 Build
    Alpine White/Imola Red Leather
    "Life is too short not to drive an ///M"
  • 06-14-2004, 05:33 PM
    arig

    did you ever wonder that michelin was breaking

    the rules? the reason why the rule was changed was to clarify that the width of the grooves on the tires must remain the same under load and heat. michelin designed the tire so that at race temp the grooves were closer together, providing a tire closer to a slick. so fia investigated at the request of another team(i.e. ferrari) and issued a rule clarification. it isn't fair when they break the rules, and rules are rules, so punishment must be used to deter others from breaking the rules.

    your opinions are stupid, that is all.

    also, i do not work at a fast food place.

    it's a demo. so guess what the details are.
    20% Tint
    <img src="http://members.roadfly.com/arig/new%20new%20version%20sig%20copy.jpg">
  • 06-14-2004, 04:50 PM
    nkochary

    To me this is as clear as it gets

    -----------------------------------------------------
    <img src="http://members.roadfly.com/nkochary/sig2.jpg">
  • 06-14-2004, 04:23 PM
    Jim Derrig 93 750

    you're right on 3, so no favorite played there

  • 06-14-2004, 03:34 PM
    ezsce46

    1. They knew, or SM is just incompetent.

    3. Ferrari appealed, and an independent appeal court ruled in favor of allowing drivers to keep the pts.<html>
    <img src="http://members.roadfly.org/ezsce46/FWb.jpg">
    </html>
  • 06-14-2004, 03:16 PM
    Jim Derrig 93 750

    some thoughts

    1. yep, pretty stupid for TWO teams not to have caught this.

    2. I kind of agree, but I suppose the primary problem is that the FIA does not necessarily have the independent engineering expertise to determine what discrepancies give "material advantages." Therefore, they adopt a simple rule of "screw up and you're out." I'm not saying this is optimal, but it appears to be the system.

    3. In 1999 Ferrari was found to have a technical violation and the FIA allowed the drivers to keep their WDC points, thus allowing Irvine to challenge for the WDC, but Ferrari lost its WMC points (but still managed to win the WMC). This doesn't really show favoritism to Ferrari, I suppose.
  • 06-14-2004, 03:09 PM
    Jim Derrig 93 750

    pre-race inspect is for weight only, i think

  • 06-14-2004, 02:54 PM
    EricHall

    Why did a pre-race inspection by FIA miss this?

    I would think that a pre-race (or post qualifying) inspection would have found the problem. Why was it not found by the FIA until after the race when BMW/Toyota could not do anything about it? Even if they get moved to the back of the field for the start, they would have still scored points which would have been better than the current results.
    I bet that the FIA would have still missed it after the race if it were not pointed out to them by somebody. It does not change the fact that it was wrong, but it seems like more than just the BMW/Toyota teams goofed.<html>
    <body>
    <br/>
    ======================================<br>Eric Hall<br>1994 740iL<br><font color=#000000><b>Schwarz / </b></font><font color=#b7ac9d><b>Pergament</b></font> 80k<br>Albany, OR<br>eric@[remove.this.before.emailing]@tdsway.com<p/><i>No matter where you go... There you are!</i><br>Buckaroo Bonzai<p/><font face="Wingdings" size=2></font><font face="Wingdings 2" size=2></font><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size=3>=</font><font face="Wingdings 2" size=4>55</font><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size=3>=</font><font face="Wingdings 2" size=2></font><font face="Wingdings" size=2></font><p><br>BMWCCA #304714<br> Roadfly Inner Circle #48238<br></p><img src="http://members.roadfly.com/erichall/SigGraphic.gif" alt="">
    </body>
    </html>
  • 06-14-2004, 02:36 PM
    ezsce46

    The rule is pretty clear..

    Here's the technical regulation that likely was the source of the violation.

    11.4 Air ducts:

    Air ducts for the purpose of cooling the front and rear brakes shall not protrude beyond:

    - a plane parallel to the ground situated at a distance of 160mm above the horizontal centre line of the wheel;

    - a plane parallel to the ground situated at a distance of 160mm below the horizontal centre line of the wheel;

    - a vertical plane parallel to the inner face of the wheel rim and displaced from it by 120mm toward the centre line of the car.

    Furthermore, when viewed from the side the ducts must not protrude forwards beyond the periphery of the tyre or backwards beyond the wheel rim.


    Could very well be a part of the aero upgrades slated for France its better they found out that it won't be legal now, versus after the pkg is completed. Its a shame, Williams can't win even after resort to cheating. BMW should be pretty pissed.<html>
    <img src="http://members.roadfly.org/ezsce46/FWb.jpg">
    </html>
  • 06-14-2004, 02:27 PM
    M3Richard

    Maybe you should learn to stop the name calling

    and face facts. Try having someone read this out loud to you. Maybe they can help you by explaining what the difficult parts mean.

    In Montreal, FIA scrutineering determined the brake ducts were out of spec. If neither team derived an ADVANTAGE from the violation, then the disqualification can be argued as a case of "capital punishement for jay walking." I was raising an basic issue as in "did the punishment fit the crime?" That 8 of 10 teams were not cited is immaterial. The question is "should teams be disqualified (v. fined or place on probation, etc.)for violations that did not influence the result of the race, appear unintentional and that endangered no one." I guess questions over and above "do you want fries with that" stump you, eh?

    Last year Ferrari summons the FIA to their headquarters to whine about tires, and the FIA immediately changed a rules interpretation regarding tires that had stood for more than a year. That decision directly and materially influenced the final outcome of the championship. And you, in your profound, leaned wisdom, combined with and discussion type that consists of kindergarden name-calling, believe that this incident does not justify reasonable doubt about the FIA's "fairness" in handling Ferrari v. other teams or their overall competence?

    Time for you to sign off Daddy's computer and head to work now. Remember to practice: "do you want to Super-Size that?"



    RichardM///3
    Delaware USA
    02'M36 Speed, 1/02 Build
    Alpine White/Imola Red Leather
    "Life is too short not to drive an ///M"
  • 06-14-2004, 01:44 PM
    arig

    Re: On BMW being disqualified from Canadian GP:

    toyota stated that they gained nothing from this. the problem was a stack-up of manufacturing tolerances according to toyota. bmw just admits the mistake. if their is a violation, they should be penalised. there were 8 other teams who did not commit the violation.

    as for you inferring that ferrari would not have been penalised, STFU. you are fooking idiot. you just keep making these dumb comments about ferrari's unfair advantage. ecclestone has fought extremely hard along with many others to increase team rights and now he has control over the sport. the last thing bernie wants to do is cheat for the ferrari team. if anything, he wants another team to beat ferrari, to make it a ferrari vs. (X team) because that would be great for the sport. please stop posting your dumb remarks. i respect your right to have these dumb remarks, but please don't post them. it is really annoying. plus, everytime you post, i lose a bit of faith in humanity's intelligence.

    it's a demo. so guess what the details are.
    20% Tint
    <img src="http://members.roadfly.com/arig/new%20new%20version%20sig%20copy.jpg">
  • 06-14-2004, 01:33 PM
    M3Richard

    On BMW being disqualified from Canadian GP:

    1- F1 rightfully claims to be the high-tech version of motorsport, with the "best and brightest" engineers & mechanics. That being said, how is it possible that nobody was smart enough to either understand the technical regulations regarding brake ducts and/or to properly measure the ducts and compare the results to the regulation? Seems to me someone ought to be "make redundant" (as the Brits say) over this.
    2- From what I read, the ducts were not "oversize", only located in a manner that was illegal as provided for the the technical regs. Does this mean Williams-BWM and Toyota were disqualified for a rules violation that did not give them a material advantage? If so, it would seem the "penalty does not fit the crime."
    3- If the situation outlined in #3 is in fact true (technical violation that did not provide a material advantage) what do you suppose would have happend had Ferrari been similarly caught?
    RichardM///3
    Delaware USA
    02'M36 Speed, 1/02 Build
    Alpine White/Imola Red Leather
    "Life is too short not to drive an ///M"

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
1e2 Forum