FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[AKR]

Actually Ferrari's 'flexi-floor' was was within the rules of interpretation but once it was deemed an unfair advantage it was banned, it was not a deliberate breaking of the rules.

I'm quite sure that it was less rigid than the regulations allow. In addition, it was actually designed to deceive the FIA tests on rigidity - when the stress was applied in the test, a spring prevented it from moving more than it was allowed. However, the greater forces generated by racing at speed meant that it could flex a lot more than it was allowed to as defined by the regulations.

Thank you again for that sensible post. I think the tifosi need to come down from their ivory towers and read up their facts.

Of course to you that is sensible. Simply because it favours McLaren being innocent and Ferrari the exact opposite. But of course as soon as we bring up the Spygate scandal or the inncident at Spa, that is all wrong and of course McLaren really did no wrong and the FIA conspiring against McLaren in Ferrari's favour. Problem with you is you accept only alleged Ferrari cheating, but not proven McLaren cheating. You're biased and that is a fact. It is either you see one view from both sides or the other side of the story from both sides. Not simply just choose to accept what is convenient for you.

It's not alleged - they were caught.

Ok then, assumung you are right and Ferrari were caught, then why no penalty? Can someone explain that to me? Or perhaps explain the excuse for not penalising Ferrari?

[Denthúl]

Actually Ferrari's 'flexi-floor' was was within the rules of interpretation but once it was deemed an unfair advantage it was banned, it was not a deliberate breaking of the rules.

I'm quite sure that it was less rigid than the regulations allow. In addition, it was actually designed to deceive the FIA tests on rigidity - when the stress was applied in the test, a spring prevented it from moving more than it was allowed. However, the greater forces generated by racing at speed meant that it could flex a lot more than it was allowed to as defined by the regulations.

Thank you again for that sensible post. I think the tifosi need to come down from their ivory towers and read up their facts.

Of course to you that is sensible. Simply because it favours McLaren being innocent and Ferrari the exact opposite. But of course as soon as we bring up the Spygate scandal or the inncident at Spa, that is all wrong and of course McLaren really did no wrong and the FIA conspiring against McLaren in Ferrari's favour. Problem with you is you accept only alleged Ferrari cheating, but not proven McLaren cheating. You're biased and that is a fact. It is either you see one view from both sides or the other side of the story from both sides. Not simply just choose to accept what is convenient for you.

It's not alleged - they were caught.

Ok then, assumung you are right and Ferrari were caught, then why no penalty? Can someone explain that to me? Or perhaps explain the excuse for not penalising Ferrari?

Who knows? BMW Sauber were rumoured to have used a similar system and they weren't penalised, either.

I don't remember if Renault were penalised or not over the mass damper, but they still had the system banned.

[AKR]

Actually Ferrari's 'flexi-floor' was was within the rules of interpretation but once it was deemed an unfair advantage it was banned, it was not a deliberate breaking of the rules.

I'm quite sure that it was less rigid than the regulations allow. In addition, it was actually designed to deceive the FIA tests on rigidity - when the stress was applied in the test, a spring prevented it from moving more than it was allowed. However, the greater forces generated by racing at speed meant that it could flex a lot more than it was allowed to as defined by the regulations.

Thank you again for that sensible post. I think the tifosi need to come down from their ivory towers and read up their facts.

Of course to you that is sensible. Simply because it favours McLaren being innocent and Ferrari the exact opposite. But of course as soon as we bring up the Spygate scandal or the inncident at Spa, that is all wrong and of course McLaren really did no wrong and the FIA conspiring against McLaren in Ferrari's favour. Problem with you is you accept only alleged Ferrari cheating, but not proven McLaren cheating. You're biased and that is a fact. It is either you see one view from both sides or the other side of the story from both sides. Not simply just choose to accept what is convenient for you.

It's not alleged - they were caught.

Ok then, assumung you are right and Ferrari were caught, then why no penalty? Can someone explain that to me? Or perhaps explain the excuse for not penalising Ferrari?

Who knows? BMW Sauber were rumoured to have used a similar system and they weren't penalised, either.

I don't remember if Renault were penalised or not over the mass damper, but they still had the system banned.

The next question is what if McLaren were caught using it, would they of been penalised?

[bjsulla]

The next question is what if McLaren were caught using it, would they of been penalised?

Do you really want to know the answer to that one AKR?

[darwin dali]

Yes, BMW Sauber used a similar system to take advantage of the loophole in the regs pertaining to the way that particular reg was measured/enforced. The way of measuring and enforcing this reg was subsequently changed to better reflect the spirit of the reg and that's the end of the story. No cheating involved, just exploiting a loophole. I bet if McLaren had had a similar system back then, we would still run with flexible floors today or maybe the reg would have been changed for this season, but nobody would cry foul and cheating and Ferrari and FIA and conspiracy, etc.

[AKR]

Yes, BMW Sauber used a similar system to take advantage of the loophole in the regs pertaining to the way that particular reg was measured/enforced. The way of measuring and enforcing this reg was subsequently changed to better reflect the spirit of the reg and that's the end of the story. No cheating involved, just exploiting a loophole. I bet if McLaren had had a similar system back then, we would still run with flexible floors today or maybe the reg would have been changed for this season, but nobody would cry foul and cheating and Ferrari and FIA and conspiracy, etc.

If it was done or used through a loophole then technically the rule doesn't forbid the use of it, meaning it isn't actually illegal, meaning Ferrari didn't cheat. Of course it was a loophole though so then the FIA made the use of it illegal meaning Ferrari had to cease using it meaning if they then continued to use it, it would of been illegal. They obviously stopped using it meaning they never cheated. See no conspiracy after all. The rules are the same for everyone.

[McLaren Fan]

It didn't seem like there was a loophole when I read the regulations after Ferrari's interpretation of the rules. If they were confident it was legal, why did they cover-up the design in the crash-test process? Ferrari's rehashes of the rules are always great. I'm all for innovation, but innovation involves using loopholes, not ignoring the regulations.

[AKR]

It didn't seem like there was a loophole when I read the regulations after Ferrari's interpretation of the rules. If they were confident it was legal, why did they cover-up the design in the crash-test process? Ferrari's rehashes of the rules are always great. I'm all for innovation, but innovation involves using loopholes, not ignoring the regulations.

This is what I love about you Chris, always make sure you give me something good to think about. For all of it, you could be right, but prior to joining the forum I would never of considered this as the "rules are the same for all". I think you understand the deeper meaning of what I am trying to say. Thankyou to you and "others" who think alike.

[McLaren Fan]

It didn't seem like there was a loophole when I read the regulations after Ferrari's interpretation of the rules. If they were confident it was legal, why did they cover-up the design in the crash-test process? Ferrari's rehashes of the rules are always great. I'm all for innovation, but innovation involves using loopholes, not ignoring the regulations.

This is what I love about you Chris, always make sure you give me something good to think about. For all of it, you could be right, but prior to joining the forum I would never of considered this as the "rules are the same for all". I think you understand the deeper meaning of what I am trying to say. Thankyou to you and "others" who think alike.

I love you, too, Kiki.

[AKR]

It didn't seem like there was a loophole when I read the regulations after Ferrari's interpretation of the rules. If they were confident it was legal, why did they cover-up the design in the crash-test process? Ferrari's rehashes of the rules are always great. I'm all for innovation, but innovation involves using loopholes, not ignoring the regulations.

This is what I love about you Chris, always make sure you give me something good to think about. For all of it, you could be right, but prior to joining the forum I would never of considered this as the "rules are the same for all". I think you understand the deeper meaning of what I am trying to say. Thankyou to you and "others" who think alike.

I love you, too, Kiki.

Hvala, Hvala, Hvala. Thanks, Thanks, Thanks.......

[racechick]

Ive found an 8th reason why so many F1 fans are furious........BUD HAS BEEN BANNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[AKR]

Ive found an 8th reason why so many F1 fans are furious........BUD HAS BEEN BANNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agreed, agreed, agreed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[McLaren Fan]