ICA Diffusor Documentation

[Conceptual]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74666


THIS IS MY FAVORITE PART!

57. At the hearing, Ferrari acknowledged that multiple vertical transitions had been used by many teams in the past, including Ferrari itself, and argued that all such prior uses (including its own) had constituted a technical violation of the TR which had been tolerated. However, it argued that where multiple transitions had been used at the front of the car, rather than the rear, this constituted only a minor breach which could have been easily remedied, had it been necessary to do so, without a significant detriment to performance. Ferrari contends that multiple vertical transitions at the rear of the car have not been seen before and constitute a more serious violation which should not be tolerated.

So, Ferrari saying.. "Yeah, we have all cheated this way before, but we only cheated a little bit, and only at the front of the car, so that is OK...But anyone using this same "minor" cheat at the back of the car should not be tolerated..."

I mean, what kind of logic does it take to seriously think that this was a good idea to even admit to this?
They should be named specifically, so the entire world can laugh in their faces!

[Rob W]

Nicely quoted Conceptual. I noticed that too....

Especially considering the "only a person of extreme arrogance...." quote from the Ferrari lawyer last week. Someone should call him up and say: "only a person of extreme arrogance would think they're.... oh... hang on... doh!"

[vasia]

Pie on the face for Ferrari. Looks like all the controversy surrounding them over the past 10 or so years is really catching up with them now.

[machin]

This is the bit that sounds stupid to me:-

Findings of the Court

85. The Court observes that opinions of the Technical Department, while performing a vital role, are advisory in nature and are not Technical Regulations. Teams are obliged to comply with the TR as written. It is for the Stewards, and ultimately this Court, to offer binding interpretations of the TR. Even if the Contested Decisions were inconsistent with any opinion of the FIA Technical Department (which has not been established), this would not give rise to the invalidity of the Contested Decisions. The Court therefore denies the Sixth Plea.

So basically Renault and Red Bull might as well have asked F1Technical forum readers on the diffuser legality as they have just as much validity as the FIA Technical Department???!!!!!

How rubbish is that?!

[machin]

Further cost saving idea for the FIA:- get rid of the FIA Technical Department if what they decide has no effect on the regulations....

[xpensive]

I agree with you completely machin, the following is as shocking as outrageous, not least to CW himself.
If that man has any self-respect that is.

85. The Court observes that opinions of the Technical Department, while performing a vital role, are advisory in nature and are not Technical Regulations. Teams are obliged to comply with the TR as written. It is for the Stewards, and ultimately this Court, to offer binding interpretations of the TR. Even if the Contested Decisions were inconsistent with any opinion of the FIA Technical Department (which has not been established), this would not give rise to the invalidity of the Contested Decisions. The Court therefore denies the Sixth Plea.

In other words, at the end of the day things are all up to MrM, a bit like Tony George, only much more powerful.

The man is his father's son, imagine, had WWII ended differently, he would probably live on Downing Street today?

[timbo]

I agree with you completely machin, the following is as shocking as outrageous, not least to CW himself.
If that man has any self-respect that is.

Last year was very revealing on the CW role. I wonder why teams still ask him for advice.

[bazanaius]

Does anyone know specifically what modifications to the rules Ross Brawn suggested pre season, that were turned down?

I wonder if it has anything to do with the bit about Brawn's assumptions that the planes that intersect to form a continuous surface don't need to be vertical (or something - the legalese confused me a bit)? This seemed to be the only bit that the ICA didn't uphold (although they then went on to suggest it didn't matter anyway!) - I wonder if this was why the suggested rule changes were not accepted.

B

[Rob W]

This is the bit that sounds stupid to me:-

Findings of the Court

85. The Court observes that opinions of the Technical Department~~

So basically Renault and Red Bull bla bla . . have just as much validity as the FIA Technical Department???!

This bit makes sense in some weird law-speak - it's the just the wording of #85 which leaves a lot to be desired ha ha. Basically the gist of the section is straight-forward, (teams argued that) "The Decision of the Stewards is Inconsistent with Previous Statements Rendered by the FIA"..

"82. .Renault says... designs similar to those used by the Contested Design Teams in the Contested Design Concept were contrary to the TR.

83. Red Bull asked the FIA in January 2007 to clarify its position as regards any discontinuity in the reference plane, and the response from the FIA clearly stated that such a discontinuity would be illegal."

And then the answer covers it:

"84. The FIA argues that in no previous statement did it deal with the Contested Design Concept" and "The questions put to it in previous cases were different and answered correctly and in a manner consistent with its present position."

The the weirdness of #85 follows ha ha.

In short, I guess they're saying you can't table a decision from the technical department as evidence of being right/wrong in a technical regulations court hearing or as justification for being allowed to continue using X or protest against Y.