 | |
Flexi-floors rumbles on
Formula 1 Formula 1 motor racing discusions (rec.autos.sport.f1)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#21
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Flexi-floors rumbles on -
04-26-2007
, 06:45 AM
|
CatharticF1 wrote: address (AT) in (DOT) sig (ric zito) wrote in news:1hx64bj.k0r7hq1qdu488N% address (AT) in (DOT) sig: CatharticF1 <eferrari (AT) heaven (DOT) net> wrote: ...They could just give the trophies to McLaren now, but that might raise suspicion even with the slow children. But it's their turn, surely? Perhaps the FIA could help in the interests of fairness by changing the points system or banning something before a team gets to all but win a title with it, ...and that's the *team's* fault??? How disingenuous. You mean like the Ferrari Team and the floor (as opposed to TMD)? TMD - not obviously against the rules, and when asked, the FIA said, we think they're legal. Flexi floors are against the letter of the rules, period. The only reason that Ferrari and BMW have not been penalised is because the FIA doesn't have the balls to do it. or use a wider tread than the rules describe, We've been there before. You're wrong, and you know it. The tyres were legal, and repeatedly passed scrutineering for a year. I dare say you'd have been the most vociferous defender had the boot been on Bridgestone's foot. There's nothing procedurally different between the tyre issue and the TMD issue or the flexi-floor issue; APART from the critical point in the season when it was "suddenly" declared illegal. Oh, and the beneficiary, of course... Renault got TMD for the best part of a season (they'd used it in the previous season I believe.) They also got told that it was legal to run! Until the FIA reinterpreted the rules in the widest and most absurd way possible, and by then, everybody had one. Some Michelin runners got to use their tyres in such a way as to increase the effective tread width and got win after win (not sure how many races - but more than 4 I think) Even that was never proven - at least one of the teams so accused was found to have tyres that were narrower than required at the end of the race, and the whole idea that you could measure the contact patch by using a ruler on a static tyre after it had been used for 30 laps was bollocks, and you were told so at the time by a vehicle dynamicist. Ferrari's use of the floor lasted 4 races and may well have been banned for the same reason: to level the playing field. It just happened sooner. I *wonder* why!? That pro Ferrari bias, huh? Because it breaks the letter of the rules. They should've been docked points and banned races for such a flagrant violation as BAR were. That looks like pro-Ferrari bias to me. or not check the tyres when they become slicks Oh, oh, oh, that ONLY happened to Michelins, didn't it? No, we never saw red cars with bald tyres - ever. ROFL. Oh I remember in 2001 Fisichella at Spa didn't even bother to change his when he stopped! It was laughable. They didn't even pay lip service to the 'rules'. And at Malaysia 2002 Ralf won with bald tyres. The FIA never said there must be grooves. They said, if there is evidence of a team gaining a performance advantage by running tyres until the grooves disappeared (meaning, not just filled up with marbles until they become invisible to the TV cameras) then they would review the situation. Typical FIA wooliness - the only way to force them to sharpen the rules is to push as far against them as you can, and then have them make a clarification. I'm sure Ferrari are absolutely as aware of that concept as everyone else. Bridgestone came to the party rather late and I don't recall races where there were bald BS and grooved Michelins, but the reverse sure as hell was the case. Why would it matter that Bridgestone were gaining an advantage that Michelin weren't? It was never actually against the rules. I remembered my post at the time of Ralf's press conference after Malaysia: Note : bracketed parts are implied. Yes, it was almost a perfect race. But the team did a fantastic job (scraping the rubber off the tyres), the car was just there, almost perfect the whole race (we didn't have to worry about those pesky grooves at all!), especially the second stint where there was even more rubber on the circuit (and no grooves on my tyres at all). It was just an easy game (we had no grooves). I was amazed at how quick the car was today (it felt like the old F1 cars when we used to run slicks). I still can't believe (that they let us run slicks) to be honest. It's all down to the team, I must say.. (the money they paid the FIA was well spent) You can put words into anyones mouth, and it won't make it any more than your opinion. or stop those noisy motors revving too highly, Are you suggesting that Ferrari's motor a) revved much higher than the others, and b) was so much more powerful thanks to that? ... because I a) suggest you try and prove it, and b) ROFLMAO. Whose engine looked the best at the end of last season? So naturally it's in Ferrari's interests to change things. :-| It's in everyones interest to rev limit the engines because it reduces their expenditure. And whether Ferrari's engine "looked best" isn't the point - you were asked to demonstrate that it revved highest, thereby being damaged the most by being off its design point at 19k. |
--
"...Luigi follow only the Ferraris."
#22
| |||
| |||
|
|
...So much for the idea of the slow kids catching on. |
--
ric
ric at pixelligence dot com
#23
| |||
| |||
|
|
address (AT) in (DOT) sig (ric zito) wrote in news:1hx63wh.2fwy4odhr0n4N%address (AT) in (DOT) sig: Scuderia-who-can-do-no-wrong. Makes me feel all warm inside, Ric. Welcome  |
you feel warm inside? You've been drinking too much
Dave's Insanity Sauce, perhaps, and it's begun to
kick in?
Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.
#24
| |||
| |||
|
|
...So much for the idea of the slow kids catching on. |
to make that's not based on polemic and accusation without evidence, let
me know.
--
Phil
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmc1979/
#25
| |||
| |||
|
|
ric zito wrote: CatharticF1 <eferrari (AT) heaven (DOT) net> wrote: snip for brevity :-P or not check the tyres when they become slicks Oh, oh, oh, that ONLY happened to Michelins, didn't it? No, we never saw red cars with bald tyres - ever. ROFL. Oh I remember in 2001 Fisichella at Spa didn't even bother to change his when he stopped! It was laughable. They didn't even pay lip service to the 'rules'. And at Malaysia 2002 Ralf won with bald tyres. Bridgestone came to the party rather late and I don't recall races where there were bald BS and grooved Michelins, but the reverse sure as hell was the case. Well, short of spending weeks downloading torrents and examining race by race, I'm not going to be able to prove otherwise. So I'll let it go. But I clearly remember Ferraris with slicks at the rear, on many occasions. No problem, ric, there's a good one here: http://ferrarityres.notlong.com and here: http://ferrarityres2.notlong.com and here: http://ferrarityres3.notlong.com HTH |
doesn't)
So for how many years do you suppose Michelin should be allowed to do it
alone? Is 4 not enough?
And for that one shot from 2005, the Ferraris were well off the pace and
in tyre distress at Hockenheim. They plainly weren't getting an
advantage. In addition, by this late in the piece (4 years later) it was
plain that with both manufacturers that cars were losing grip in normal
conditions once the grooves were worn.
So: here's one from *2001*
http://www.autosport.com/gallery/photo.php/id/1016
http://www.autosport.com/gallery/photo.php/id/1018
Note particularly the second one. Fisichella didn't change his fronts
when he made a pitstop. And then he didn't change them again..
I wonder why?
Of course I don't at all, it was tolerated in the wonderful grey area to
allow the other teams to try to catch Ferrari. I accept that things like
the ridiculous ruling at Monza last year in qualifying were contrived.
But this was (at the time) equally obvious in reverse. It was farcical.
The pendulum does swing both ways.
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."
#26
| |||
| |||
|
|
CatharticF1 <eferrari (AT) heaven (DOT) net> wrote: snip for brevity We've been there before. You're wrong, and you know it. The tyres were legal, and repeatedly passed scrutineering for a year. I dare say you'd have been the most vociferous defender had the boot been on Bridgestone's foot. There's nothing procedurally different between the tyre issue and the TMD issue or the flexi-floor issue; APART from the critical point in the season when it was "suddenly" declared illegal. Oh, and the beneficiary, of course... Renault got TMD for the best part of a season (they'd used it in the previous season I believe.) Some Michelin runners got to use their tyres in such a way as to increase the effective tread width and got win after win (not sure how many races - but more than 4 I think) They were passed, and LEGAL. Nobody was complaining. What part of that don't you get? |
course..
<snip>
Quote:
|
Whose engine looked the best at the end of last season? So naturally it's in Ferrari's interests to change things. :-| Get it right. If Ferrari's engine looked so "good" then Newey wouldn't have spent months trying to fob it off on a lower team. Also, the end of last season was *after* the freeze date. It is logical that all teams would frantically optimise their engine before the freeze. I'd be very surprised if, as an overall package, any engine was more than 2-3% away from any other. Only thinking in terms of top-end bhp is too simplistic : Renault have shown that repeatedly since the early 90s. Driveability, cooling, packaging, amongst other things. It seems to be a Ferrari problem, this myopic "top-end horses" thinking. It was thus back in the 90s too, when Alesi was driving dragster V12s and Renault were running rings around him, by showing Ferrari how modern engines *should* be built. |
historical reference you make to their V12s wasn't the case with last
year's motor, and I'm sure you know that.
As we've discussed, I don't know why Newey didn't go with the Ferrari
motor, but Ferrari don't seem too handicapped by it.
Quote:
|
Flexi-wings front, flexi-wings rear, tyre ovens, flexi-floors, moveable aero brake fairings, barge boards, parking at Monaco, fixing race outcomes, pressuring the FIA into spuriously penalising other teams at critical points in the season, penalising drivers 200m up the road for blocking, dangerous chop, er, driving ...etc etc. All Ferrari "innovations". There's a lot of stuff here that's borderline silly.. Really? What, for instance? |
years for a start. As is the case for things like 'pressuring the FIA'.
You say pressured, someone else says 'asks for clarification'.
And Mansell started the chop. Ferrari don't have it trademarked
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."
#27
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
|
CatharticF1 wrote: address (AT) in (DOT) sig (ric zito) wrote in news:1hx64bj.k0r7hq1qdu488N% address (AT) in (DOT) sig: CatharticF1 <eferrari (AT) heaven (DOT) net> wrote: ...They could just give the trophies to McLaren now, but that might raise suspicion even with the slow children. But it's their turn, surely? Perhaps the FIA could help in the interests of fairness by changing the points system or banning something before a team gets to all but win a title with it, ...and that's the *team's* fault??? How disingenuous. You mean like the Ferrari Team and the floor (as opposed to TMD)? TMD - not obviously against the rules, and when asked, the FIA said, we think they're legal. Flexi floors are against the letter of the rules, period. The only reason that Ferrari and BMW have not been penalised is because the FIA doesn't have the balls to do it. |
IMO the floor and the TMD should have been banned right away or not at
all. The TMD stood for much longer than the floor, and according to
Flavio was protested by McLaren anyway!
So one team got the benefit for much longer - and it wasn't Ferrari!
Quote:
|
or use a wider tread than the rules describe, We've been there before. You're wrong, and you know it. The tyres were legal, and repeatedly passed scrutineering for a year. I dare say you'd have been the most vociferous defender had the boot been on Bridgestone's foot. There's nothing procedurally different between the tyre issue and the TMD issue or the flexi-floor issue; APART from the critical point in the season when it was "suddenly" declared illegal. Oh, and the beneficiary, of course... Renault got TMD for the best part of a season (they'd used it in the previous season I believe.) They also got told that it was legal to run! Until the FIA reinterpreted the rules in the widest and most absurd way possible, and by then, everybody had one. |
Quote:
|
Some Michelin runners got to use their tyres in such a way as to increase the effective tread width and got win after win (not sure how many races - but more than 4 I think) Even that was never proven - at least one of the teams so accused was found to have tyres that were narrower than required at the end of the race, and the whole idea that you could measure the contact patch by using a ruler on a static tyre after it had been used for 30 laps was bollocks, and you were told so at the time by a vehicle dynamicist. |
can't measure it anyway.
Quote:
|
Ferrari's use of the floor lasted 4 races and may well have been banned for the same reason: to level the playing field. It just happened sooner. I *wonder* why!? That pro Ferrari bias, huh? Because it breaks the letter of the rules. They should've been docked points and banned races for such a flagrant violation as BAR were. That looks like pro-Ferrari bias to me. |
were in place. The scrutineers knew about it from Japan last year.
Quote:
|
or not check the tyres when they become slicks Oh, oh, oh, that ONLY happened to Michelins, didn't it? No, we never saw red cars with bald tyres - ever. ROFL. Oh I remember in 2001 Fisichella at Spa didn't even bother to change his when he stopped! It was laughable. They didn't even pay lip service to the 'rules'. And at Malaysia 2002 Ralf won with bald tyres. The FIA never said there must be grooves. They said, if there is evidence of a team gaining a performance advantage by running tyres until the grooves disappeared (meaning, not just filled up with marbles until they become invisible to the TV cameras) then they would review the situation. Typical FIA wooliness - the only way to force them to sharpen the rules is to push as far against them as you can, and then have them make a clarification. I'm sure Ferrari are absolutely as aware of that concept as everyone else. |
them without grooves. Fisichellas retention of the same fronts through 2
pitsops at Spa in 2001 is positive proof that the rule (as you expressed
it) was broken.
<snip>
Quote:
|
I remembered my post at the time of Ralf's press conference after Malaysia: Note : bracketed parts are implied. Yes, it was almost a perfect race. But the team did a fantastic job (scraping the rubber off the tyres), the car was just there, almost perfect the whole race (we didn't have to worry about those pesky grooves at all!), especially the second stint where there was even more rubber on the circuit (and no grooves on my tyres at all). It was just an easy game (we had no grooves). I was amazed at how quick the car was today (it felt like the old F1 cars when we used to run slicks). I still can't believe (that they let us run slicks) to be honest. It's all down to the team, I must say.. (the money they paid the FIA was well spent) You can put words into anyones mouth, and it won't make it any more than your opinion. |
Quote:
|
or stop those noisy motors revving too highly, Are you suggesting that Ferrari's motor a) revved much higher than the others, and b) was so much more powerful thanks to that? ... because I a) suggest you try and prove it, and b) ROFLMAO. Whose engine looked the best at the end of last season? So naturally it's in Ferrari's interests to change things. :-| It's in everyones interest to rev limit the engines because it reduces their expenditure. And whether Ferrari's engine "looked best" isn't the point - you were asked to demonstrate that it revved highest, thereby being damaged the most by being off its design point at 19k. |
to disadvantage the strongest team. And for the last few races of the old
regulations that was plainly Ferrari.
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."
#28
| |||
| |||
|
|
CatharticF1 <eferrari (AT) heaven (DOT) net> writes: address (AT) in (DOT) sig (ric zito) wrote in news:1hx63wh.2fwy4odhr0n4N%address (AT) in (DOT) sig: Scuderia-who-can-do-no-wrong. Makes me feel all warm inside, Ric. Welcome Your inability to detect and understand irony makes you feel warm inside? You've been drinking too much Dave's Insanity Sauce, perhaps, and it's begun to kick in? |
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."
#29
| |||
| |||
|
|
And Mansell started the chop. Ferrari don't have it trademarked |
--
Paul-B Formula 1 - cheat-free version here now.
#30
| |||
| |||
|
|
CatharticF1 wrote: And Mansell started the chop. Ferrari don't have it trademarked Get your facts right, Brendan. It was Senna who originated the chop. |
defence! ;-p
Well the earliest I remember is Mansell on Prost at Estoril in 1990. Happy
to hear of earlier ones though - and of course it's not inconsistent with
memories of Senna. Which race(s)?
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.