McLaren Appeal

Jeff Higgins · 10:13 AM

So at what point do they quit digging their own grave? I mean, it's time to put down the shovel. Instead they chose to fire up the backhoe. If this appeal goes through, and Williams Toyota, along with BMW Sauber have to give up their finishing positions, I think McLaren will be well and truly "done" for a generation of fans. What a mess. Maybe it's time the FIA reconsider their position on drivers vs. team points; they were ready to take all of Hamilton's and Alonso's points earlier, if McLaren had raised too big of a stink over the manufacturer's points. Now this. In a clear effort to win in court what they could not on track (in spite of stealing Ferrari's secrets) they are showing absolutetly unmittigated gall. I hope the FIA slams them to the mat...

legion · 10:20 AM

McLaren is accused of cheating (no evidence they actually benefitted). They get the book thrown at them.

Ferarri actually cheats (flexible floor), they receive no penalty.

If McLaren had the flexible floor and Ferrari had McLaren's technical documents, I bet that McLaren would still be out constructor's points and Ferrari would not have been punished (as they did not benefit).

I agree that McLaren should not challenge this (championships should be won on the track, IMO), but I can't blame them considering the treatment they have gotten this season. God knows Ferrari would challenge this (and win).

frogger · 10-22-2007, 10:16 AM

It is their right.

chapo · 10-22-2007, 10:44 AM

They ALL had some version of the flexible floor. McLaren just needed to steal some documents to figure out how to do it

Just kidding. Ron Dennis should have worried more about winning the drivers championship with either of his drivers instead of his golden boy. Dennis threw the season away, pure and simple.
He is the manager, he made very poor management decisions all year. This is another one.

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

FIA is so far up Ferrari's ass it's impossible to tell where they end and Ferrari begins.

motion · 10-22-2007, 11:19 AM

And well they should be. Its Ferrari that keeps this sport at its fanatical level. Try imagining F1 without Ferrari.

Aerkuld · Aerkuld's Garage

It has been made pretty clear to Mclaren this year that the FIA will not tolerate breaching the rules, yet here is an example where the rules have cleary been breached yet the governing body wasn't going to do anything about it. So the rules apply to McLaren now and no one else? What do you expect them to do?

I think it was Martin Whitmarsh at McLaren who said something to the effect of "If we didn't [protest] then all of our fans and sponsors would want to know why".
I think that sums it up nicely.

Jims5543 · 10-22-2007, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chapo

They ALL had some version of the flexible floor. McLaren just needed to steal some documents to figure out how to do it

Just kidding. Ron Dennis should have worried more about winning the drivers championship with either of his drivers instead of his golden boy. Dennis threw the season away, pure and simple.
He is the manager, he made very poor management decisions all year. This is another one.

Your not so far from the truth. There were other teams with flexi floors. McLaren was ready to protest before the 1st race of the season.

Remember last year Ferrari had a flexi wing? They got busted, and were told to remove them, then Renault was told to remove the mass dampener from their front nose cone. Neither received penalties.

Ferrari began running disks on it rear wheels last year, then added fronts. Everyone watched to see if the FIA was going to order them removed, then when nothing happened they all began adapting them to their cars.

So what is the difference here? Ferrari pushed the rule envelope, I am sure if they had McLarens documents they could fin an item or 2 to protest as well.

It was protested and it was removed. Just like the wing and just like the dampeners. No penalties, just orders for all teams to remove the floor.

So how can this compare to a team obtaining plans for the other teams cars?

Its one thing to take pictures of the cars, look at video etc.. its a whole different story when your taking documents from a active employee. It showed lack of character. Dennis, if he had any ethics, would have been on the phone with Ferrari letting them know what Stephney was doing.

But this isn't the issue here, the issue is whether or not BMW and Toyota were purposefully cooling down their fuel. Or did the ambient temps run up so fast the fuel did not keep up. Will the penalty be monetary or are they going to DQ drivers? What did they do when McLaran and Honda used 2 sets of wets? Seems to be a good precedent was set.

I can say this much, if they DQ the drivers I am done with F1.

Jeff Higgins · 10-22-2007, 11:54 AM

No one else that was behind the Williams Toyota or BMW Sauber felt the need to protest.

Pushing the gray areas of the rules, in your own car design, is as old as racing itself. Penalties have been very light or non-existant where a gray area is uncovered and is subsequently clarified. Stealing from another team has never been a gray area. Comparing Ferrari's flexible floor to McLaren's theft is rediculous.

Aerkuld · Aerkuld's Garage

I don't have a copy of the FIA's rule book in front of me, but as far as I can tell this is a fairly accurate statement. If anyone can do better please feel free to chip in or criticise...

Renault's mass damper system was a gray area as far as I can see.

But when the rules specify 10 degrees below ambient for the fuel then that is very clear. The last time I checked 12, 13, or 14 degrees was greater than 10 degrees, so that is clearly a breach.

Similarly the rules clearly state "No movable aerodynamic devices" while there is no doubt that any wing will have some flex in it and so will move, to design it so that it moves to benefit the car is clearly a breach of the rules. To be honest I am suprised that Ferrari didn't protest McLaren's front high mount wing this year.

The floor is even more clear I would have though. Not only can it be considered an aerodynamic device, but it has to meet the minimum ground clearance regulations not just during technical inspection but AT ALL TIMES. That too is in the rules.

McLaren are doing the right thing in protesting even if I did want Kimi to win the drivers championship.

Jims5543 · 10-22-2007, 12:57 PM

They also have a very clear rule about how many tires can be scrubbed in during Friday practice and yet McLaren ignored that one. They got off with a small fine and no driver penalties.

What would make you happy with the fuel violation?

A team fine? DQ's of the drivers so Hammy can have his WC in the courts instead of on the track?

Even Hammy said he does not want to win the WC in the courts he prefers to win it on the track. I dislike McLaren after this year, but respect Hammy even more now.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63598

Aerkuld · Aerkuld's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Cesiro

They also have a very clear rule about how many tires can be scrubbed in during Friday practice and yet McLaren ignored that one. They got off with a small fine and no driver penalties.

What would make you happy with the fuel violation?

A team fine? DQ's of the drivers so Hammy can have his WC in the courts instead of on the track?

Even Hammy said he does not want to win the WC in the courts he prefers to win it on the track. I dislike McLaren after this year, but respect Hammy even more now.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63598

I agree about the tires and I think that the teams who violated that rule were lucky that the judgement went the way it did and they were only fined. It could have been a lot worse. Any team had the right to protest that decision if they wanted to or felt that using two sets of tires would have given anyone an advantage.

I'm not saying that anything needs to happed in the protest over the fuel or that the decision needs to be changed. My point is that McLaren are doing the right thing in their professional capacity as a competitor to protest an obvious violation of the rules especially if they feel that those teams had any advantage by doing so. I'm not saying that I'm pleased about it, but they have a job to do and they're doing it. End of story.

Jeff Higgins · 10-22-2007, 01:36 PM

I should have been more clear. The "gray area" to which I was refering was the movable floor, not the fuel temp. I see that in the same vein as the movable aero surfaces; it will always flex a bit. That is what the plank is for; to catch those tinkering with such things that will make the car violate the minimum ride height. I'm not sure that the technical regulations specify maximum deflection of the floor under any and all circumstances. Now if there was a mechanical device in there to actually move it under driver control, then that would be another matter. We don't know that there was. I suspect it was some kind of passive system, like the front wing you mentioned.

The stewards have already said they dropped the fuel temp issue because they could not be sure of those fuel temps. I know everyone would love to assume another FIA / Ferrari conspiracy theory explaining why they dropped it. From what I understand, however, the "stewards of the meeting" are locals, staffing positions filled by the venues at which they are racing. Maybe they are Massa fans; who knows.

The facts remain that McLaren protested and others did not. Mosely still maintains that while Hamilton and Alonso drove exceptionally well this year, that some of their performance has to be attributed to a substantially improved McLaren package. He, and the FIA, were being quite generous in allowing them to keep points earned in that car. I believe the FIA were too generous.

Next year may tell on the future of McLaren. The 2007 car was done by the time they got any of Ferrari's data. It was too late to make wholesale changes, but no doubt little tweaks here and there were made, within the confines of their existing design. Next year's car was in the middle of the design phase when they were receiving that Ferrari data. Don't be surprised if they are not allowed to run it next year, and instead wind up with an iteratiojn of this year's.

They are basically screwed; damned if they do, damned if they don't. Any technological innovation that even hints at Ferrari's solution will not be allowed on their car. These cars do not differ that much. Where, say, Renault could get away with something that just happens to be remarkably close to a Ferrari idea, McLaren can claim no happenstance if a similar solution shows up on their car. They may be effectively ruled out of using even their own latest innovations.

sammyg2 · 10-22-2007, 01:57 PM

It was 95 degrees out there. Obviously the overnight temperature was much lower. Could it be that their fuel had not warmed up as quickly as the outside temperature was rising? maybe their fuel was in the shade when others had it in the sun?
I'd say it's a bit too early to accuse someone of cheating in regards to the fuel temperature, I can think of several innocent explanations and I wasn't even there.

Jims5543 · 10-22-2007, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammyg2

It was 95 degrees out there. Obviously the overnight temperature was much lower. Could it be that their fuel had not warmed up as quickly as the outside temperature was rising? maybe their fuel was in the shade when others had it in the sun?
I'd say it's a bit too early to accuse someone of cheating in regards to the fuel temperature, I can think of several innocent explanations and I wasn't even there.

Exactly what I said in other threads.

In Sao Paulo the nighttime temps can get into the 60's, once the Sun comes up the daytime temps will soar. It was 95° during the race. It would take the fuel pretty much most of the day to get from a temp in the 70's to the 85°.

It seems the teams may have to put heaters on their fuel storage next year so as not to exceed the 10° rule.

Maybe Ferrari will now appeal the tire ruling from Friday. They could possibly keep us all occupied all winter long.