 | |
Flexi-floors rumbles on
Formula 1 Formula 1 motor racing discusions (rec.autos.sport.f1)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#31
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Flexi-floors rumbles on -
04-27-2007
, 03:41 AM
|
They were passed, and LEGAL. Nobody was complaining. What part of that don't you get? Indeed - they were passed and considered legal. As was Ferrari's floor of course.. |
protested and declared illegal. That moment, in the case of the
flexi-floors, is much earlier in the season and thus easier to recover
from.
Ron Dennis is actually quite an altruist... :-)
Quote:
|
Well my point is that the status quo was very strong for Ferrari, the historical reference you make to their V12s wasn't the case with last year's motor, and I'm sure you know that. |
the season the Ferrari had high speed-trap figures, but that doesn't
mean anything. That could be pure aero. As I recall, BMW were often
right up there too.
OTOH, what is very clear is that the Ferrari mill was very publically
refused by one of the leading designers in F1, undoubtedly with all the
facts in hand, and after considerable pro/con detail thinking. With all
due respect, I'd say that's more concrete evidence that it simply isn't
(wasn't) the best engine, than a subjective fan's opinion or misleading
speed stats.
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? Well the flexi wings were something exploited by many teams over many years for a start. |
borderline on the issue. More so than others. More so than McLaren.
In fact, to swing this thread back to where I interjected originally -
you haven't cited one example of McLaren's supposed cheating that can be
corroborated by an official complaint etc. You snipped out my request
for it.
So I maintain that your and Mark's anti-McLaren whingeing is just
irrational, partisan nonsense - because you can't back it up. Not even
Mark's infamous "I didn't see any smoke" traction control crap - which I
find hilariously tenuous, coming from someone who gets all shirty about
using photogrammetry or acoustic analysis to make a case. Almost as
funny as his "I heard the Brit savages baying for blood" Silverstone
"evidence".
Wishful thinking, I say. But hell, if you have a case to make, go ahead,
make it. :-)
--
ric
ric at pixelligence dot com
#32
| |||
| |||
|
|
CatharticF1 <eferrari (AT) heaven (DOT) net> wrote: They were passed, and LEGAL. Nobody was complaining. What part of that don't you get? Indeed - they were passed and considered legal. As was Ferrari's floor of course.. As I said, the only real difference is the moment at which they were protested and declared illegal. That moment, in the case of the flexi-floors, is much earlier in the season and thus easier to recover from. Ron Dennis is actually quite an altruist... :-) |
Such a selfless chap
Quote:
|
Well my point is that the status quo was very strong for Ferrari, the historical reference you make to their V12s wasn't the case with last year's motor, and I'm sure you know that. I don't know on what you base your opinion. Sure, at various points in the season the Ferrari had high speed-trap figures, but that doesn't mean anything. That could be pure aero. As I recall, BMW were often right up there too. OTOH, what is very clear is that the Ferrari mill was very publically refused by one of the leading designers in F1, undoubtedly with all the facts in hand, and after considerable pro/con detail thinking. With all due respect, I'd say that's more concrete evidence that it simply isn't (wasn't) the best engine, than a subjective fan's opinion or misleading speed stats. |
close to or the class of the field at the end of last season.
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? Well the flexi wings were something exploited by many teams over many years for a start. Perhaps, but once again Ferrari were very clearly involved, and borderline on the issue. More so than others. More so than McLaren. In fact, to swing this thread back to where I interjected originally - you haven't cited one example of McLaren's supposed cheating that can be corroborated by an official complaint etc. You snipped out my request for it. So I maintain that your and Mark's anti-McLaren whingeing is just irrational, partisan nonsense - because you can't back it up. Not even Mark's infamous "I didn't see any smoke" traction control crap - which I find hilariously tenuous, coming from someone who gets all shirty about using photogrammetry or acoustic analysis to make a case. Almost as funny as his "I heard the Brit savages baying for blood" Silverstone "evidence". Wishful thinking, I say. But hell, if you have a case to make, go ahead, make it. :-) |
And that Ferrari don't get use of it is somehow an advantage because they
get to recover from it? You don't need me to explain the flaw there.
But on the illegal BMIA side. How's this (I've posted it before):
Tyrrell with ball bearings running underweight, Brabham and Williams with
water cooled brakes running underweight, McLaren with the fiddle brake
and automatic gear change mechanism (1994), BAR with the fuel tank,
Brabham with the fan car, Brabham with the hydraulically lowered
suspension passing clearance in scrutineering and lowering itself when on
the track, Renault with the movable rear bodywork, Renault with the TMD,
the use of Michelin's tyres to increase the contact patch, the vanishing
grooves on Michelin tyres, Lotus with the twin chassis, Toyota with the
F2002 clone. (OK - Toyota are hardly BMIA members - maybe they're just
aspiring to be :-p)
--
CatharticF1
'What you thought was freedom is just greed'
#33
| |||
| |||
|
|
CatharticF1 wrote: "Paul-B" <paul (AT) rasf1 (DOT) net> wrote in news:59diueF2j9rsvU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net: 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. You have no idea how long I've been expecting you to come to Nigel's 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)? Does it make a differnce to you if the "Schumacher chop" was not his own innovation? Does the possiblity that other drivers may have once done something similar, before Schumacher addopted it as his MO and made it his own, make it any less dangerous or unacceptable. There are reasons it's not known as the "Mansell chop" or the "Senna chop". |
Quote:
|
It would be interesting to see some clips to see how they compare with the master. |
--
CatharticF1
'What you thought was freedom is just greed'
#34
| |||
| |||
|
|
CatharticF1 wrote: And Mansell started the chop. While at Ferrari? |
Shocking the way Tyrrell cheated with the ball bearings isn't it?
--
CatharticF1
'What you thought was freedom is just greed'
#35
| |||||
| |||||
|
|
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. Floor = Ditto Not so. Sadly merely passing scrutineering does not guarantee a legal car - see also BAR fuel pumps. 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. That's rubbish - so let's not worry how wide the tread is because we can't measure it anyway. Exactly. Which is why nothing was ever overtly done - it's impossible to measure the tread width of a used tyre in any manner that could be considered accurate enough to determine the kind of 4mm "advantage" that some teams were claimed to have - not all the Michelin teams, of course, only the occasional tyres that were alleged to be over the limit. |
happy to have *that* then retrospectively make *it* illegal? But not for
the tyres?
Why do you feel that way do you suppose?
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. No it doesn't break the letter of the rules. It passes the tests that were in place. The scrutineers knew about it from Japan last year. The tests are not the rules, they are the scrutineers tools. |
Quote:
|
Passing the tests does not mean that the car is legal, because there is another rule which is completely separate and untested for, and a further rule that says they can bring in more tests whenever they like. |
the footwell might be a bad idea for a number of reasons?
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. Except that the Michelin runners plainly did get benefit from running 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. Then it was up to the FIA to act, and it seems they must have because it stopped happening. Retention of the tyres is not proof that the car was faster with the slicks, btw, only that it was not slower. |
The same could be said of any illegal device ever used.
<snip>
Quote:
|
No - what I'm saying is that any change in the regulations is most likely to disadvantage the strongest team. And for the last few races of the old regulations that was plainly Ferrari. I don't agree that strongest team equates to strongest engine. |
they can't have been far from it.
--
CatharticF1
'What you thought was freedom is just greed'
#36
| |||
| |||
|
|
CatharticF1 wrote: And Mansell started the chop. While at Ferrari? Ferrari don't have it trademarked Yet the "Schumacher chop" is so rarely imitated. Any idea why that is? |
do it to screw #2. But if you're not #3, then you can put yourself
at risk of losing the best line into the first corner. Sometimes
it is just best to go with purpose straight at the optimal line
into the first corner, and ignore what's going on behind.
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./.
#37
| ||||||
| ||||||
|
|
Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in news:59b77oF2j6k8bU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net: 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. Now this is just silly. 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! 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. Floor = Ditto |
car - see also BAR fuel pumps.
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. That's rubbish - so let's not worry how wide the tread is because we can't measure it anyway. |
measure the tread width of a used tyre in any manner that could be
considered accurate enough to determine the kind of 4mm "advantage" that
some teams were claimed to have - not all the Michelin teams, of course,
only the occasional tyres that were alleged to be over the limit.
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. No it doesn't break the letter of the rules. It passes the tests that were in place. The scrutineers knew about it from Japan last year. |
tests does not mean that the car is legal, because there is another rule
which is completely separate and untested for, and a further rule that
says they can bring in more tests whenever they like.
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. Except that the Michelin runners plainly did get benefit from running 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. |
stopped happening. Retention of the tyres is not proof that the car was
faster with the slicks, btw, only that it was not slower.
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. But it *was* fun! |
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. No - what I'm saying is that any change in the regulations is most likely to disadvantage the strongest team. And for the last few races of the old regulations that was plainly Ferrari. |
--
Phil
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmc1979/
#38
| |||
| |||
|
|
CatharticF1 wrote: Bigbird wrote in news:xn0f5g8ok2ih2yt00g (AT) news (DOT) individual.net: CatharticF1 wrote: And Mansell started the chop. While at Ferrari? On the old misdirection ploy are we again? Hold on dear boy. Any misdirection or misleading comments are yours to correct if you will. So why not answer the question? Are you not claiming that Ferrari didn't TM the chop by reference another Ferrari driver who first chopped while at Ferrari? It appears disengenuous and misleading for you not to mention this if it is a fact. How can you claim I am misdirecting by asking you to clarify your own statement. |
from the main point. You do this all of the time and the reason you do is
clear. But don't foam at the mouth I'll answer this for you:
There is nothing to suggest that the team would have asked Mansell to veer
across and cut off his own teammate (you see - also a Ferrari driver). Or
did you not even realise that perhaps? Unless you can in some way attribute
otherwise, it is not in any way attributable to the team.
And as Paul pointed out, Senna beat him to it. BTW, who was he driving for
Bird - because that's apparently relevant in this discussion at least to
*you*?
--
CatharticF1
'What you thought was freedom is just greed'
#39
| ||||||
| ||||||
|
|
CatharticF1 wrote: Phil Newnham wrote in news:59e0rhF2k1jjuU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net: snip Exactly. Which is why nothing was ever overtly done - it's impossible to measure the tread width of a used tyre in any manner that could be considered accurate enough to determine the kind of 4mm "advantage" that some teams were claimed to have - not all the Michelin teams, of course, only the occasional tyres that were alleged to be over the limit. And yet they changed the way they measure floor deflection - and you're happy to have *that* then retrospectively make *it* illegal? But not for the tyres? They changed the way they weigh the cars especially to check the BARs. |
what BAR did.
Quote:
|
Why do you feel that way do you suppose? The rules state that the floor must be rigidly mounted and not flexible. The floor is mounted using a special type of joint designed specifically to allow a degree of freedom - the same as the upper front wing to nosecone joints last year. It is not necessary to use a loading device to establish that the purpose of these devices has been to break the rules by deception. |
that both the tyres and the floor were illegal or that neither were.
Wings aren't rigid - they flex but merely not more than the test (and no
bloody less I can tell you!)
BTW AIUI the alternative floor arrangement simply doesn't use a spring.
And in fact there is speculation that the floor of some cars itself
flexes - which is the reason for the higher load test. (200 kg lift
hardly seems representative of an aero load at the front of the floor)
Quote:
|
No it doesn't break the letter of the rules. It passes the tests that were in place. The scrutineers knew about it from Japan last year. The tests are not the rules, they are the scrutineers tools. Except where we're measuring tread of course, huh! The tyre tread argument wears thin for a number of reasons. One, the rules do not state clearly and unequivocably that the tyre tread must always be a certain width and no wider. Two, measuring the tread width on a tyre that has encountered vertical surfaces as well as horizontal ones is impossible. Three, the alleged infractions were often by a very small amount, drawing the accuracy of the measurement into serious question, and not on all Michelin cars or even both cars in one team. |
be better defined was (and is) clear.
Quote:
|
Passing the tests does not mean that the car is legal, because there is another rule which is completely separate and untested for, and a further rule that says they can bring in more tests whenever they like. Like - with the tread or suddenly realising that 10kg floating about in the footwell might be a bad idea for a number of reasons? Realising it might be a bad idea is not the same as ruling it illegal. And "floating about in the footwell" is inaccurate, inflammatory and misleading. |
always something dangerous and able to be exploited. It should have been
killed immediately - and never tolerated. It's one step away from having
a weight sliding along the longtitudinal axis of the car. And it's at the
very least a negative step from a safety perspective so close to the
driver.
I don't doubt that the view of you all would be how appalling it was that
Ferrari was allowed to cheat for so long had they used it for such a long
period. I agree the timing was opportune, equally though Flavio said it
was McLaren who brought it up. But they got plenty of benefit from it!!
Is there anyone who really thinks it should be allowed?
Quote:
|
Except that the Michelin runners plainly did get benefit from running 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. Then it was up to the FIA to act, and it seems they must have because it stopped happening. Retention of the tyres is not proof that the car was faster with the slicks, btw, only that it was not slower. Nice try..! The same could be said of any illegal device ever used. No, not at all. There are illegal devices that are clearly against the rules, such as flexible bodywork, and there are devices that were ruled illegal because the rules were flexibly interpreted due to the FIA wishing that they should be illegal, such as the TMDs. |
area to reduce grip, and that when worn the tyre should offer less not
more grip, and that a team leaves the tyres on past the point when it
should be effective, it presents a bigger contact patch and is preferred
to a new tyre: it's a slam dunk, Phil.
Quote:
|
No - what I'm saying is that any change in the regulations is most likely to disadvantage the strongest team. And for the last few races of the old regulations that was plainly Ferrari. I don't agree that strongest team equates to strongest engine. You're right of course but as I said to Ric if they didn't have the best they can't have been far from it. Then you're wrong - if their engine wasn't the strongest then the 19k rev limit doesn't relatively disadvantage them at all, except in relation to a team with a really crap engine, and there are none of those, anymore. |
its very definition.
--
CatharticF1
'What you thought was freedom is just greed'
#40
| |||
| |||
|
|
CatharticF1 wrote: Bigbird wrote in news:xn0f5gb8m2m14s400j (AT) news (DOT) individual.net: CatharticF1 wrote: Bigbird wrote in news:xn0f5g8ok2ih2yt00g (AT) news (DOT) individual.net: CatharticF1 wrote: And Mansell started the chop. While at Ferrari? On the old misdirection ploy are we again? Hold on dear boy. Any misdirection or misleading comments are yours to correct if you will. So why not answer the question? Are you not claiming that Ferrari didn't TM the chop by reference another Ferrari driver who first chopped while at Ferrari? It appears disengenuous and misleading for you not to mention this if it is a fact. How can you claim I am misdirecting by asking you to clarify your own statement. You're full of it, Bird. It's an irrelevance meant to draw attention away from the main point. You do this all of the time and the reason you do is clear. But don't foam at the mouth I'll answer this for you: There is nothing to suggest that the team would have asked Mansell to veer across and cut off his own teammate (you see - also a Ferrari driver). Or did you not even realise that perhaps? Unless you can in some way attribute otherwise, it is not in any way attributable to the team. And as Paul pointed out, Senna beat him to it. BTW, who was he driving for Bird - because that's apparently relevant in this discussion at least to you? Don't lose it Brendan. It was you that brought up this nonsense. Getting upset because your ruse has been exposed is hardly sporting is it? I have called you on this before. If you choose to continue using misleading statements you should at least try for something that hasn't already been exposed as bogus. I.e. don't set yourself up for a fall then complain of a grazed knee. Get a grip dear boy. |
So that's how you admit you were caught out. How gracious!
(suddenly the team isn't relevant after all..)
--
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.