FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[darwin dali]

A little exchange between N. Tozzi (Ferrari lawyer) and Paddy Lowe from McLaren that doesn't get much play in public, but nicely shows why Ferrari's floor was actually NOT illegal at the time. Another example (like the 1999 barge board issue) where Ferrari was not in the wrong, had played by the rules and by the book and yet all the Ferrari haters clamor foul play against better knowledge.


Nigel TOZZI I cannot ask you about the brake system, unfortunately, not having seen your confidential witness statement. Instead, I would like to ask you about the attack that you made on Mr Costa’s statement, regarding the alleged illegality of the Ferrari car. I will take this shortly, because I do not think it is that relevant, but you make a big deal of it. Mr Lowe, Article 315, to which you refer, of the Technical Regulations refers to aerodynamic influence: “with the exception of the cover described in Article 652 and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance, must, in compliance with rules regarding bodywork, be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the carâ€

[racechick]

Too long Too boring. Life is too short

[darwin dali]

I see. On top of everything you're also suffering from ADD. Don't forget to take your Ritalin

[darwin dali]

It just blows my mind how somebody can claim (or act as if) they have informed opinions about, e.g., the spy affair when they can't be bothered to read a couple pages of the transcript let alone the entire document.
That's why we get all these outrageous and unfounded - and frankly very tiring and repetitive - claims of conspiracies against McLaren, that Ferrari was cheating and the FIA is with Ferrari - and probably that the US Government brought down the World Trade Center

[racechick]

No, I see plenty of ADD in my job. Thats not me. Just need something a little more dynamic than that to er ...how shall I put it?..maintain my interest...

[racechick]

OOOoo temper temper

[racechick]

No I clear Ferrari of anything to do with the world trade centre. They just stick to winning by foul means and fair on the race track(you see i dont say they cheat All the time )

[racechick]

Oh and i do read plenty of stuff, i am informed, but i steer clear of technical documents, I'm not an engineer. I form my opinions from what i see and by reading the views of informed proffessionals

[aboldero]

Patrick LOWE I find that an extraordinary positioned: that something should be only illegal when it is clarified to be so.

So Ferrari are quite happy to run a can that is theoretically illegal, until someone notices, and the rules are clarified, rather than the normal approach of clarifying if something is legal - THEN putting it on the car.

Patrick LOWE It is a pre-buckled stay. It is already in the buckling mode before the start. Buckling implies that it is stiff initially, then buckles. This means it would be very rigid at the start, then very soft, which would cynically exploit the behaviours in Article 3.17.

I may be wrong, but my understanding of a "bre-buckled stay", is that it is buckled when no load is on it (so floor is correct), then as the aerodynamic load increases, which would flex floor, the stay is designed to straighten itself to KEEP floor in legal position... as opposed to Ferrari damper system which was designed toallow floor to flex upwards under aerodynamic loads. which would make the McLaren system legal and the Ferrari system ILLEGAL...

however, as stated in the document, because the clarification had not been sought it was a grey area which Ferrari exploited.

[sidepodcast]

however, as stated in the document, because the clarification had not been sought it was a grey area which Ferrari exploited.

more importantly though, how about this email from Nigel:

At the same time, the turning vanes also move. The front floor is about 100 cm long, so it is quite an effective device, also as mentioned in my previous e-mail, as a mass damper, because it helps in this mode to control the arrow and keep the front tyre contact patch.

movable aero device? mass damper?

neither of which are grey areas in the rules.

[darwin dali]

Max MOSLEY Could I intervene? The situation is as follows. Mr Tozzi means that it is completely wrong to describe Ferrari’s system in Australia as illegal; it is one that passed the test as it then existed. You then quite rightly challenged this, and Charlie issued a reinterpretation of the test.

Max MOSLEY I do not think that anyone on the World Council would seriously consider that the Ferrari device was illegal at the time, any more than the Renault mass damper before it was eliminated.

[McLaren Fan]

however, as stated in the document, because the clarification had not been sought it was a grey area which Ferrari exploited.

Which raises another question about why McLaren were fined for their new gearbox not being tested. There is nothing in the rules which states that a gearbox has to be crash tested, provided the structures around the gearbox were the same. This was the case with the McLaren car. Yet, bigwigs get involved and penalise McLaren in an area which is at worst a beige colour and Ferrari are allowed to run a flexi-floor until it's deemed illegal! Once again, it's one rule for Ferrari and another rule for the rest of us.

[ferraribird]

It just blows my mind how somebody can claim (or act as if) they have informed opinions about, e.g., the spy affair when they can't be bothered to read a couple pages of the transcript let alone the entire document.
That's why we get all these outrageous and unfounded - and frankly very tiring and repetitive - claims of conspiracies against McLaren, that Ferrari was cheating and the FIA is with Ferrari - and probably that the US Government brought down the World Trade Center

Damn I forgot about that conspiracy theory in my post on the other thread!