Hamilton could be stripped of the title

im_srini · 12th September 2007, 22:37

Hi RacingForIndia, I really really really wanted to sit this one out but couldn't help it ! You make it sound as if Ferrari's your typical resentful kid, who goes running to his mom (the FIA) every time somebody (Renault, McLaren, Williams, etc) beats him up in the playground

The thing is that every team is constantly looking for loopholes around the technical regulations of the FIA. Every opportunity to circumvent a regulation is investigated & exploited - every team does that. When such an interpretation by a particular team is deemed to violate the regulation, the other teams can take up the case with the FIA, who arbitrate.

The Renault mass damper was actually deemed legal when it was introduced in the R25. The controversy surrounding the dampers was whether they were movable aerodynamic parts or not (which are banned by the FIA). Of course, it would seem that the mass dampers, which were within the car & weren't exposed to the airstream, were legal. At Hockenhein, the FIA's own stewards, after receiving complains from several teams, sought clarifications from Renault & even inspected the R26 - they certified it to be within the regulations. The FIA subsequently appealed the decision of it's own stewards, arguing that the dampers artificially altered the pitch of the car, thus influencing the performance of the aero parts. Don't you think that Renault, with Flavio at the wheel, would've gone after the FIA if they were incorrect ?

Earlier this year, McLaren went to the FIA requesting a "clarification" regarding the rigidity of the floor of a F1 car's chassis, & the FIA promptly came back with a clarification. Guess what, Ferrari were running a movable floor at that time, & were forced to abandon the concept after the FIA's clarification. Remember, the F2007 was legal up to that point, it did pass scrutineering & all the tests. Ferrari just exploited a loop hole, which was closed by the FIA. Incidentally, it is rumored that it was Stepney who passed on this design tit-bit of Ferrari to McLaren.

Sometimes technology is also banned by the FIA on safety grounds, like ground-effects & active suspension (pioneered by Lotus), & turbos (pioneered by Renault). The regulations aren't all pervasive, they have holes, & teams exploit them. As each hole is discovered (by hook or by crook), it is plugged by the FIA - there is no Ferrari conspiracy ! By the way, did you know that Beryllium is a category 1 carcinogenic ?

And finally, to all the conspiracy buffs - the Americans did land on the moon, the Russians didn't, neither did Ferrari

RacingForIndia · 13th September 2007, 11:40

I am going to disregard the Landing on the moon comment, its got nothing to do with what is being debated on here, and I couldn’t care less even if man didn’t land on the moon.
2theMax made a good point on why McLaren is quick on the Bridgestone’s while the rest of the grid has struggled. My answer to that is, all these years it has been a 2-horse fight. Last year Renault pushed the development of its car to the limits hence couldn’t find the time to develop its car around the Bridgestone tyres. Renault Chief Carols Ghosn himself has admitted this, but since he is not a member of Ferrari you guys will count his comments for Zilch. Hence this year they are struggling.
BMW is by no means struggling. In only their second year they have picked up their pace considerably. They are just 0.5 of a sec slower then the lead two, hence that cannot be any means be call as struggling.
HONDA are struggling because of wrong calibrations on the wind tunnel.
Toyota are struggling because they are trying to run a F1 unit like its some corporate business house. The racing spirit is not there with them, and to top it they kicked the biggest resource they had; Mike Gascoyne.
Why the hell arent McLaren struggling?
Well the 06 season was a write off for them, and they did get a head start on the development of their 07 charger much early than what Ferrari or Renault could afford. Ferrari obviously had the advantage of knowing how the Bridgestone’s worked hence they could afford to leave it late in the development of their car. When Alonso drove the McLaren with the Bridgestone tyres he said that the car was amazingly easy and quick to drive even when the team didn’t have much running on those rubbers. This was way before the Stephneygate unfolded. The point I am making here is that the McLaren was a well-engineered car, from its inception. I don’t know how much data was carried over from Ferrari to McLaren; the FIA certainly didn’t find any so it would be difficult to speculate on that one.
@im_srini. I am not the resentful kid here, the Tifosi are. I am stating facts upon facts and all you guys are doing is come up with quotes like the your opening line and the landing on the moon thinge. I see the points you made about the movable floors. All McLaren did was ask the FIA if the movable floor was within the regulation and if it was could they(McLaren) have one fitted to their cars as well. This was not a complaint but a clarification as you rightly pointed out.

While we are at it try and check out the link which I have underkeyed.
10 Questions For Max Mosley and the FIA - Planet-F1 News - from planet-f1.com

im_srini · 13th September 2007, 15:15

Hi, I think it's time for somebody to call truce here, this cold-war will get us nothing, other than flying allegations & frayed nerves. RacingForIndia, the moon thing was a joke in response to RTech & Sam

I'm not insisting that McLaren's success is solely due to stolen Ferrari data, anybody who's a serious follower of F1 would know enough to know that it just isn't true. But Ferrari are no mean slouch themselves, they're just as good as McLaren, if not better, when it comes to engineering & technology. It rubs me the wrong way when people disparage the scarlet team, claiming their success to 1) cheating, & 2) an unholy alliance with the FIA.

Anyway, to those who're interested in the movable floors Ferrari, & BMW, ran earlier this year. The FIA technical regulations prohibit flexible bodywork. The technical regulations for 2007 can be downloaded from the FIA web-site, & is a 41 page document, in both English & French. It makes for an interesting read, & article 3 in it describes bodywork & dimensions, with section 3.17 detailing bodywork flexibility. Sub-section 3.17.4 states that a 500 N load (almost the same force as is required to hold on to a 51 Kg weight) would be applied 38 cms behind the front wheel centerline, in an upward direction, & that the body work (floor) not move by more than 5 mm.

If you consider the language of the regulation alone, i.e. consider it literally, then all you need to do is design something which would just pass the test. Which is what Ferrari & BMW did, they had a movable floor, pivoted to the chassis using springs . The springs had just enough resistance to pass the 500 N test ! So, if the aerodynamic loads were greater when at speed, the floors would move upward, creating an effect very similar to Colin Chapman's ground-effects Lotus cars. Nobody's sure if it was Stepney who passed on this information to McLaren, but after Ferrari wiped the floor with everybody in Australia, McLaren sought a clarification from the FIA regarding such a system. The FIA clarified that the regulation, & the 500 N test, was meant to prevent moving aerodynamic structures underneath the car, & not to test the efficacy of a system designed to allow flexibility ! They further clarified that the 500 N test would be modified so that going forward, any such devices (springs, pivots, etc) should be removed before the test is carried out. This episode is very similar to what Renault went through last year with their tuned mass damper, to those who're interested, the article in question was 3.15.

To those criticizing the FIA, it is run by Max Mosley, who I think is a very fair person. F1 is managed by FOM, FOA, & a whole bunch of other companies set-up by Bernie Ecclestone. Bernie is usually the object of criticism, but remember that he successfully ran Brabham, recognized legends like Murray & Piquet, & was one of the first to realize the importance of television to the future of F1. He was also instrumental in the creation of the FOCA.

What amazes me about F1 is that we have 11 teams, using different engines, different chassis, different electronics, 22 drivers & yet, all 22 cars are covered by just 5 to 6 seconds ! That can only be possible if everything is pushed to the limit isn't it ? At 160 kmph, a 0.1 second difference around a 5 Km track is around 14 feet, that's all there is - a car length ! Anyway, with just a few hours to go, I guess the question posed by this thread would soon be answered...

RacingForIndia · 13th September 2007, 15:32

I am not doubting Ferraris engineering talents, any company which can engineer a road car like the Enzo has to have serious talent, but I have problems when they twist the rule book and get away with it. The F1 rules are open to interpretation, and I am not sure why they have kept it that way.
Ferrari did not cheat when they engineered the movable floor thing, but they found a way to circumvent the rulebook and were reprimanded whenMcLaren showed eager ness on their part to have something similar to their cars.
As for Max Mosley, I don’t rank him highly after what he did to Stodddart during the 04 season. You do know what happened just before the Ozzy GP(04) right?
Anyways from the looks like it, McLaren is in trouble.

Sam Kapasi · 13th September 2007, 15:41

Quote:

You do know what happened just before the Ozzy GP(04) right?

Ozzy Osbourne was in Formula one??? He's even more talented than I thought!

And now guys, take a deep breath and chill out. You are all very passionate and extremely intelligent. It is normal to argue given the circumcisions. I mean circumstances. I think.

This is an interesting argument. Don't get heavy with it, then we won't feel like reading it anymore

Why can't we all just be friends? heh heh heh.

RacingForIndia · 13th September 2007, 16:01

Sam, this is all in good spirits. I am enjoying the debate and I hope everyone else on here is too. :-)

Rtech · 13th September 2007, 16:06

I sure am. This is a good debate as long as it stays clean and doesn't get personal!

extreme_torque · 13th September 2007, 16:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi

Ozzy Osbourne was in Formula one??? He's even more talented than I thought!

And now guys, take a deep breath and chill out. You are all very passionate and extremely intelligent. It is normal to argue given the circumcisions. I mean circumstances. I think.

This is an interesting argument. Don't get heavy with it, then we won't feel like reading it anymore

Why can't we all just be friends? heh heh heh.

A fascinating argument I must say and very eye opening and informative. I am sure no love's lost between the two. I wouldn't mind 1 or 2 more posts giving more insights into F1

im_srini · 13th September 2007, 16:15

Surely you meant the 2005 Oz GP ? If not anything, one has to respect Stoddart's courage, not giving up despite Minardi's unglamorous nick-names, "moving chicanes" & "perennial losers". But turning up for the 2005 season, with an unmodified 2004 car, I would you call it a tad reckless...

nitrous · 13th September 2007, 19:44

OT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sam

Don't ask me how I know, but I know for a fact that a Ferrari never landed on the moon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kapasi

. It is normal to argue given the circumcisions.

U come out of nowhere and we're all in splits!
What would Team-BHP be without U,bro.....

12th September 2007, 22:37	#61
im_srini BHPian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Portland Posts: 1,010 Thanked: 490 Times View My Garage	Hi RacingForIndia, I really really really wanted to sit this one out but couldn't help it ! You make it sound as if Ferrari's your typical resentful kid, who goes running to his mom (the FIA) every time somebody (Renault, McLaren, Williams, etc) beats him up in the playground The thing is that every team is constantly looking for loopholes around the technical regulations of the FIA. Every opportunity to circumvent a regulation is investigated & exploited - every team does that. When such an interpretation by a particular team is deemed to violate the regulation, the other teams can take up the case with the FIA, who arbitrate. The Renault mass damper was actually deemed legal when it was introduced in the R25. The controversy surrounding the dampers was whether they were movable aerodynamic parts or not (which are banned by the FIA). Of course, it would seem that the mass dampers, which were within the car & weren't exposed to the airstream, were legal. At Hockenhein, the FIA's own stewards, after receiving complains from several teams, sought clarifications from Renault & even inspected the R26 - they certified it to be within the regulations. The FIA subsequently appealed the decision of it's own stewards, arguing that the dampers artificially altered the pitch of the car, thus influencing the performance of the aero parts. Don't you think that Renault, with Flavio at the wheel, would've gone after the FIA if they were incorrect ? Earlier this year, McLaren went to the FIA requesting a "clarification" regarding the rigidity of the floor of a F1 car's chassis, & the FIA promptly came back with a clarification. Guess what, Ferrari were running a movable floor at that time, & were forced to abandon the concept after the FIA's clarification. Remember, the F2007 was legal up to that point, it did pass scrutineering & all the tests. Ferrari just exploited a loop hole, which was closed by the FIA. Incidentally, it is rumored that it was Stepney who passed on this design tit-bit of Ferrari to McLaren. Sometimes technology is also banned by the FIA on safety grounds, like ground-effects & active suspension (pioneered by Lotus), & turbos (pioneered by Renault). The regulations aren't all pervasive, they have holes, & teams exploit them. As each hole is discovered (by hook or by crook), it is plugged by the FIA - there is no Ferrari conspiracy ! By the way, did you know that Beryllium is a category 1 carcinogenic ? And finally, to all the conspiracy buffs - the Americans did land on the moon, the Russians didn't, neither did Ferrari
	() Thanks

13th September 2007, 11:40	#62
RacingForIndia BHPian Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Pune Posts: 482 Thanked: 36 Times View My Garage	I am going to disregard the Landing on the moon comment, its got nothing to do with what is being debated on here, and I couldn’t care less even if man didn’t land on the moon. 2theMax made a good point on why McLaren is quick on the Bridgestone’s while the rest of the grid has struggled. My answer to that is, all these years it has been a 2-horse fight. Last year Renault pushed the development of its car to the limits hence couldn’t find the time to develop its car around the Bridgestone tyres. Renault Chief Carols Ghosn himself has admitted this, but since he is not a member of Ferrari you guys will count his comments for Zilch. Hence this year they are struggling. BMW is by no means struggling. In only their second year they have picked up their pace considerably. They are just 0.5 of a sec slower then the lead two, hence that cannot be any means be call as struggling. HONDA are struggling because of wrong calibrations on the wind tunnel. Toyota are struggling because they are trying to run a F1 unit like its some corporate business house. The racing spirit is not there with them, and to top it they kicked the biggest resource they had; Mike Gascoyne. Why the hell arent McLaren struggling? Well the 06 season was a write off for them, and they did get a head start on the development of their 07 charger much early than what Ferrari or Renault could afford. Ferrari obviously had the advantage of knowing how the Bridgestone’s worked hence they could afford to leave it late in the development of their car. When Alonso drove the McLaren with the Bridgestone tyres he said that the car was amazingly easy and quick to drive even when the team didn’t have much running on those rubbers. This was way before the Stephneygate unfolded. The point I am making here is that the McLaren was a well-engineered car, from its inception. I don’t know how much data was carried over from Ferrari to McLaren; the FIA certainly didn’t find any so it would be difficult to speculate on that one. @im_srini. I am not the resentful kid here, the Tifosi are. I am stating facts upon facts and all you guys are doing is come up with quotes like the your opening line and the landing on the moon thinge. I see the points you made about the movable floors. All McLaren did was ask the FIA if the movable floor was within the regulation and if it was could they(McLaren) have one fitted to their cars as well. This was not a complaint but a clarification as you rightly pointed out. While we are at it try and check out the link which I have underkeyed. 10 Questions For Max Mosley and the FIA - Planet-F1 News - from planet-f1.com
	() Thanks

13th September 2007, 15:15	#63
im_srini BHPian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Portland Posts: 1,010 Thanked: 490 Times View My Garage	Hi, I think it's time for somebody to call truce here, this cold-war will get us nothing, other than flying allegations & frayed nerves. RacingForIndia, the moon thing was a joke in response to RTech & Sam I'm not insisting that McLaren's success is solely due to stolen Ferrari data, anybody who's a serious follower of F1 would know enough to know that it just isn't true. But Ferrari are no mean slouch themselves, they're just as good as McLaren, if not better, when it comes to engineering & technology. It rubs me the wrong way when people disparage the scarlet team, claiming their success to 1) cheating, & 2) an unholy alliance with the FIA. Anyway, to those who're interested in the movable floors Ferrari, & BMW, ran earlier this year. The FIA technical regulations prohibit flexible bodywork. The technical regulations for 2007 can be downloaded from the FIA web-site, & is a 41 page document, in both English & French. It makes for an interesting read, & article 3 in it describes bodywork & dimensions, with section 3.17 detailing bodywork flexibility. Sub-section 3.17.4 states that a 500 N load (almost the same force as is required to hold on to a 51 Kg weight) would be applied 38 cms behind the front wheel centerline, in an upward direction, & that the body work (floor) not move by more than 5 mm. If you consider the language of the regulation alone, i.e. consider it literally, then all you need to do is design something which would just pass the test. Which is what Ferrari & BMW did, they had a movable floor, pivoted to the chassis using springs . The springs had just enough resistance to pass the 500 N test ! So, if the aerodynamic loads were greater when at speed, the floors would move upward, creating an effect very similar to Colin Chapman's ground-effects Lotus cars. Nobody's sure if it was Stepney who passed on this information to McLaren, but after Ferrari wiped the floor with everybody in Australia, McLaren sought a clarification from the FIA regarding such a system. The FIA clarified that the regulation, & the 500 N test, was meant to prevent moving aerodynamic structures underneath the car, & not to test the efficacy of a system designed to allow flexibility ! They further clarified that the 500 N test would be modified so that going forward, any such devices (springs, pivots, etc) should be removed before the test is carried out. This episode is very similar to what Renault went through last year with their tuned mass damper, to those who're interested, the article in question was 3.15. To those criticizing the FIA, it is run by Max Mosley, who I think is a very fair person. F1 is managed by FOM, FOA, & a whole bunch of other companies set-up by Bernie Ecclestone. Bernie is usually the object of criticism, but remember that he successfully ran Brabham, recognized legends like Murray & Piquet, & was one of the first to realize the importance of television to the future of F1. He was also instrumental in the creation of the FOCA. What amazes me about F1 is that we have 11 teams, using different engines, different chassis, different electronics, 22 drivers & yet, all 22 cars are covered by just 5 to 6 seconds ! That can only be possible if everything is pushed to the limit isn't it ? At 160 kmph, a 0.1 second difference around a 5 Km track is around 14 feet, that's all there is - a car length ! Anyway, with just a few hours to go, I guess the question posed by this thread would soon be answered...
	() Thanks

13th September 2007, 15:32	#64
RacingForIndia BHPian Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Pune Posts: 482 Thanked: 36 Times View My Garage	I am not doubting Ferraris engineering talents, any company which can engineer a road car like the Enzo has to have serious talent, but I have problems when they twist the rule book and get away with it. The F1 rules are open to interpretation, and I am not sure why they have kept it that way. Ferrari did not cheat when they engineered the movable floor thing, but they found a way to circumvent the rulebook and were reprimanded whenMcLaren showed eager ness on their part to have something similar to their cars. As for Max Mosley, I don’t rank him highly after what he did to Stodddart during the 04 season. You do know what happened just before the Ozzy GP(04) right? Anyways from the looks like it, McLaren is in trouble.
	() Thanks

13th September 2007, 16:01	#66
RacingForIndia BHPian Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Pune Posts: 482 Thanked: 36 Times View My Garage	Sam, this is all in good spirits. I am enjoying the debate and I hope everyone else on here is too. :-)
	() Thanks

13th September 2007, 16:06	#67
Rtech Team-BHP Support Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bombay Posts: 5,770 Thanked: 359 Times View My Garage	I sure am. This is a good debate as long as it stays clean and doesn't get personal!
	() Thanks

13th September 2007, 16:15	#69
im_srini BHPian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Portland Posts: 1,010 Thanked: 490 Times View My Garage	Surely you meant the 2005 Oz GP ? If not anything, one has to respect Stoddart's courage, not giving up despite Minardi's unglamorous nick-names, "moving chicanes" & "perennial losers". But turning up for the 2005 season, with an unmodified 2004 car, I would you call it a tad reckless...
	() Thanks