What should Ferrari's penalty be?

No, they are not. The transmission was slightly lighter, and they had used it for the one race, I believe. According to their reading of the rules, it was not different enough to warrant crash testing. The FIA decided it should be crash tested. The transmission was not illegal in any way - it just hadnt been crash tested. The rules are written that "significant changes" warrant re-testing parts. Who decides what is significant? I believe they had submitted it to the FIA but had not heard back yet, and thought it was OK. Their view did not end up being in sync with the FIA view. Its a perfectly reasonable compraison. The tranny was perfectly legal, just the FIA had not notified them yet that they saw it differently. Intermediates are also legal, but at that time they were not per the FIA. Both cases of the teams saying "sorry we didnt know". In the former, the FIA dished out a penalty. In the latter, they did not (yet).

Nope, you are wrong. They made a judgement call and thats a fact. When a rule uses a word like "significantly", its always a judgement call what the word means. How is not thinking a part is different enough "an attempt to deceive the rules". You wanna call for absolute proof, where's yours that they were attempting to deceive the rules? Even the McLaren haters haven't ever said the tranny was an attempt to deceive or break the rules. As for it being an honest mistake, its a pretty reasonable assumption based on the fact that the tranny was legal, and simply had not been crash tested and the engineers did not feel it was different enough to warrant such. They submitted it to the FIA who did not rule on it yet, so they went and ran it assuming it would be OK. if you want to call that "an attempt to deceive the rules" then whatever - its clear your mind is made up and there is no reasoning with you. As for how much of an advantage Ferrari would have gained - its pretty obvious isnt it? Don't you get it? If the rain had let up, they would have been a full pit stop ahead of the entire rest of the field. Whats that - 40 seconds? 40 seconds isnt a big deal in an F1 race? Come on...

Umm yeah because their gamble did not pay off. Had it paid off, it would have paid off big. But you miss the point. The point is not that it's OK to bend the rules so long as you don't benefit or that doing something contrary to FIA instruction is forgiveable if it blows up in your face. The point rather is that starting on anything other than full wets was contrary to the FIA instruction and IMO warrants a penalty.

You're the guy jumping into what was an otherwise reasonable conversation and going nutso on everyone demanding proof and taking pot-shots at peoples opinions. Everyone here is an adult and if someone expresses an opinion thats reasoned and well argued, you onlky make yourself look bad by blowing up in response. I can picture you behind the keyboard red-faced and banging away on the keys. Get a grip!

The FIA instructed all teams to start on full wets. That was the rule. Fact.

Both Ferraris did not start on full wets. Fact.

A rule the FIA imposed was broken. Fact.

Whether they broke a rule is not open for debate - its blatantly clear. The only point that is debateable was whether it was willful or accidental, and if the latter whether they still ought to be subject to a penalty or whether the fact that their gamble did not work is retribution enough. If you see it differently you can say that without making out like anyone who doesn't see it your way is a complete idiot.

 

Again, you are completely wrong.

For Ferrari to win, assuming the McLarens dont DNF the rest of the year, the Ferraris MUST come in 1st and 2nd. Then if Alonso beat Lewis once, Kimi wins the WDC. Thats a fact. Go look up the numbers. The only way for Ferrari to win the WDC is that way, OR to count on a McLaren DNF. Considering the cars have not DNFed due to mechanicals all year long, thats a pretty long shot of a bet. How would YOU make that argument to Todt that its not necessary to be 1-2 every race? You couldn't.

As for the part about email, here's the quote right from Stefano Domenicali "But normally when there is some information that is very sensitive, related to the running - in this case, of the race - this information should be circulated as is written on the sporting regulation article 15.1 with the receipt that has to be acknowledged by the team."

In other words, the email system is normally used for most stuff, but in the case of something important, the team should be asked to confirm receipt. Gee, thats what I said in my post - Ferrari has plausible deniability because nobody acknowledged receipt.

So as for your snide little "know what you're talking about first" comment, right back at you sport.

 

Very respectful. Very classy.

 

Whether Ferrari's breaking of the rules was intentional or not is the issue.

the matter was investigated and was was deceded to change the procedures from just email to email and written notice.

Communication is a two way street. Apparently, the Stewards bought Ferrari's story. We don't have all the facts.

Making Ferrari change their tires during the safety car session is equivalent to a stop and go penalty. So Ferrari was punished. One may disagree that it was too harsh or too lenient. We don't have all the facts.

I believe Ferrari needed to be black flagged for improper equipment. Those intermediate wet tires were a danger not only to the Ferrari Drivers as well as the rest of the grid.

I think the Stewards did exactly the right thing. I usually don't. this may be a first for me.

 

I agree for the most part. I tend to think there is no overwhelming FIA conspiracy to "help" Ferrari. I do think however that its a REALLLLY big stretch to believe that the email system the teams have been using for so long failed and it just happened to fail only for Ferrari, who also happened to be the team most needing to roll the dice and take a chance on this gamble. Its real thin - so thin I dont believe it. But, it blew up in their face and in this case, it seems to make it less of an issue. Had it gone the other way, people (except on here) would be screaming bloody murder, and rightfully so.

As it happens, the stunt cost Ferrari the WDC. Lewis will be the WDC this year, Alonso 2nd, Kimi 3rd, and Massa 4th. Had they started on full wets, Kimi likely could have challenged Lewis and it may have been 10 points for Kimi and a max of 6 for Lewis. Which means the delta would have been 4 points instead of the 12 it is now.


If it was an honest mistake, Ferrari REALLY needs to take a hard look at their internal processes. This mistake probably cost them the WDC. Massa leaving the pit lane on a red light and getting DQed, and both Kimis and Massas cars suffering mechanical problems that ended races is the reason Ferrari lost the WDC this year. They have only themselves to blame and this is something that would NOT have happened 4 years ago with MS at the helm and the team clicking nicely.

 

Good point. Actually Kimi was told he is going to be black flagged if he did not come in the pitstop to change tires.

 

Apparently what some people here are conveniently missing is the FACT that there WAS an investigation during which it was found that Ferrari indeed received the e-mail AFTER the race start. I believe that with our day technology it would be really easy to check if someone has received your e-mail, at what time and if they had opened it. FIA officially admitted that there was a problem and that is why they are going to have a written back up in the future.
About FIA being biased in Ferrari favor, I think it is pretty wrong. If there is any bias in favor of anyone, this is Hamilton. By the logic expressed by some people here why Ferrari should be penalized (for a technical problem that FIA had) Lewis Hamilton and Alonshole should not have being allowed to race 'till next year and lose their points. But it didn't happen, maybe because FIA is Ferrari biased.
So when McCheaters are caught with their hand in the jar with a cookie in it and STILL lie about it everybody is screaming bloody murder, FIA is helping Ferrari. Yet when Kubica by no fault of his bumps into the favorite son and is penalized everyone is quiet. And FIA is Ferrari biased because they conveniently (guess for who) have a technical problem which delivers the massage that the rest of the teams received already, like an hour late?
Now I am not saying that Ferrari did not gamble and therefore shot themselves in the foot. I am not saying that anyone with brain wouldn't have put them on full wets. I am not saying that Ferrari didn't know for sure what was expected of them.
What I am saying is that I have a problem hearing from the same people who have been defending McCheaters and believe that Ron Denis really didn't know what was going on in his own team, say >yeah right JT didn't know. BS!!< If in their eyes it is possible for RD not know what is going on in his team, then why is it so hard to believe that JT didn't know about the tires?
I believe a lot of people come here simply because there isn't McCheaterchat.com. So they come here start BS arguments.

 

+1000
Very well said

 

Again, you include what you want and forget everything else. So if the McLaren's finish 5th and 6th in a race ann the Ferrari's collect 1 & 2, then a Lewis mishap in the pits, along with a strong Ferrari finish couldn't secure the WDC for Kimi? It seems that it could have. Before the Fugi race, there were 3 to go and what a 13 point difference between Kimi and Lewis? That's not too much for a 3 race stretch.

First of all, before the race there were many possibilities for a Ferrari Driver Championship and it isn't an argument. Just numbers to tell the tale, no passion or distortion.

Yes and that was done.

Yes, as stated that's how the system works. What you haven't hit on yet is if Ferrari opened the email. I'm sure with the software used, one can tell if and when Ferrari opened the email, that should help decide the course of action in determining if they tried to bend the rules.

I do know what I'm talking about and unlike you I'm not biased to the point of lying. You claim to know and yet don't show your proof. You cling to your mistrust and even twist words to show teams in light that supports your posts.

You have what-if's and I-bet's filling your posts with no facts supporting them. Like I said you could be on the right track but you really have no clue of what your talking about because you don't have any facts other than there was a hic-up with an email.

 

So McLaren used a transmission that was by your words "lighter" and they did not wait for a reply from the FIA. Just so you know a light F1 car is always better than having a heavy one. That's why fuel is always calculated to the last drop, weight is everything, that's why McLaren wanted a light transmission. You also say that you "believe" McLaren submitted the info to the FIA, do you know this? Why do you believe it? You also distort what happened by saying "their view was different from the FIA" OR they outright tried to have a lighter transmission. You sugarcoat and show favorable light on McLaren and use the opposite words for the Ferrari camp when you have no proof or idea of what happened. That's bias and weak.

As for their transmission being legal, that's not the issue is it? Ferrari has Inter tires that are legal but that's not the issue is it? McLaren used equipment that was not safety tested and as I understood it, they didn't handle the FIA regulations properly for notifying of "new equipment".

One team developed a part of the car to improve the car and didn't get permission, one team may not have known about instructions about what tire to use. One broke the rules and was fined, the other haven't been accused of breaking anything. The Stewards saw a problem and took steps to correct it. If it comes to light that Ferrari read and then disregarded the email then they should be held accountable. Until then no rule was broken.

By the way a rule and and instruction sent through email are two different things.

Again, how do you know "they" thought the lighter part wasn't a significant change? How do you know what a team of people thought? It's clear that they broke the rules. It was not me who investigated McLaren, the governing body came to its own conclusions without help from me.

In one post you think they submitted the new transmission to the FIA, then the next you claim they did and went ahead and used it before hearing back. So did they break the rules... it seems so. They were punished so I assume the FIA thought rules were broken.

Yes I understand how less water on the track means you can can run less grooves but the same can be said for more rain. If there was no let up in the rain or it got worse, Ferrari would have stood to lose a lot of time. I didn't say 40 seconds wasn't a big deal, those are your words. I didn't even mention getting out in front due to a pit stop. It was clear that the extreme rain tires were the best option, Ferrari wouldn't have gained anything.

Well if I thought the Ferrari's were going to lose time, I can only imagine what the people at Ferrari were thinking. They obviously thought they could manage for the first several laps or so, otherwise they wouldn't have used the Inters. My thought on this, is that the margin for gain was soo small that disobeying an instruction from the Marshals to have a look at that small gain, doesn't make sense.

Your above statement can be used in the transmission snafu at McLaren but you refrain from using it and instead try to portray McLaren as a friendly bunch who "just want to go racing". Say what you want about me but at least I'm open minded for both sides and if it does come to light {as I said earlier} that Ferrari did dismiss the email, then they should be handed a penalty of some kind.

I'm not jumping on or in anything. Biased, unreasonable statements over something as small as a missed email or an ignored email is moronic.
In your opinion your comments may be reasonable but there have been posts that say otherwise, so yes you are entitled to your opinion but to say they are reasonable and well argued is a stretch.

How you picture me is irrelevant, answer the questions in my posts. You don't seem to want/ be able to answer any. Is that because you have nothing in the way of information, no truth, no facts, no insight? I dont work for the FIA or any F1 race team, I must wait for the facts to come out about this before I know what happened, you apparently know a lot, can you share with the rest of us?

P.S. How am I blowing up in response? I ate lunch while reading this thread, it seems you're the one linking responses with anger or being hot tempered.

You claim that instructing teams via email is a rule, it's not. Rules are set-up ahead of time for upcoming seasons. I'm sure teams are not allowwed to choose the rules they follow, so if Ferrari did read and understand the message on that day and chose not to comply, they will be punished. If they didn't read the message in time for what ever reason, then I doubt a punishment is coming to Ferrari.

I thought Massa was on full wets then pulled back?

I believe the email will be ruled an "instruction" of some sort, sooo I'm not sure what penalty can be given here, maybe a fine?

 

Why do you think its BS.The teams are required to confirm receipt of the message. All teams confirmed within 2 minutes of the email. Ferrari did not confirm so the stewards should have sent someone to the garage to confirm. Like the statement said the only reason for the emails is so that no team gets the message sooner and cause an unfair advantage. Ferrari did not confirm. I still think they blew it putting on the inter tires anyway. Everyone knew that there was no chance for the rain to let up. My question is, what was Ferrari thinking? Ross Brawn would never have made such a foolish decision.

 

+1

Several races were lost this season because of what went down at the pit wall. He is clearly missed.

 

+100

 

+1000

 

I assume no one dropped you on your head as a baby, but you are aware that Stepney recieved a million GBP? McLaren wasnt given the stuff, they bought it.

But let me get this straight, just to follow your line of reasoning. If Stepney stole my 1977 308 GTB I spent all my savings on to buy and spent the last two years restoring, and gave it to you, and you knew it was stolen, the fact you didnt steal it gets you off the hook and you can drive it as long as you want???

 

Really? Where did you get this from?

 

who also happened to be the team most needing to roll the dice and take a chance on this gamble. Its real thin - so thin I dont believe it. But, it blew up in their face and in this case, it seems to make it less of an issue. Had it gone the other way, people (except on here) would be screaming bloody murder, and rightfully so.[/QUOTE]

Do you even know how long the email system has been in use? I will guess no. It was only talked about last year at Monaco, as far as I know it was only used at the start of this year. So your claim of

is wrong and there have been a few reports of the FIA supporting Ferrari in terms of them not being notified on time, let alone not opening the email. So it seems that I am right, you don't know what's going on. Your "what-if" and "could-have" scenarios are no longer necessary.

What stunt? All teams have tire choices in ever race, some always play it safe, others look for an advantage.

Again, you biased thoughts are blinding you. As it seems right now, Ferrari haven't done anything wrong, it looks like they were in fact not notified on time. It isn't a Ferrari process. What mistake? The tire selection? You said it yourself, they were looking for an advantage. All teams try to get a leg up. So you equate a few problems over an entire season to be fatal? A couple of mechanical glitches, a pit lane exit and a tire choice in the rain? If that's all that went wrong, I would say it was a great year. If the Ferrari team was flawless you would hear the same old harping about how Ferrari is ruining F1. You can't have it both ways. Either they win or they don't.

 

What I want to know is why LH and FA didn't get a drive through for passing each other during the opening laps behind the safety car.

What should McLaren's penalty be?

 

oh we're back to this again are we.

right youyr analogy is not the same thing
in fact its not even close to the same thing.

a "similar" comparison would be if he had stolen copies of 750 of the 10,000+ photos and notes you made when restoring it.
which may or may not have shown some of your clever little tricks used to help you along and given those to a rival restorarer.

your car though would not have been taken.

 

Agree-don't know why on a safety issue they didn't manually confirm with all the teams that everyone was to be on extreme wets; every Bridgestone tire engineer for every team should also have been notified that all cars had to be on extreme wets; its not as if there were 100 cars in this race.

As for a penalty against Ferrari, the fact that race stewards for the future have changed the rules to include a manual written confirmation tells me that they in fact failed to confirm Ferrari received the email AND READ IT, or that the email was set late. Calling for penalties against Ferrari in light of the investigation is as assinine as Kubica's drive through penalty. Kubica was the victim of LH braking early due to LH's fuel heavy car but I digress.....

 

eh ?????

LH was leading - IF he ever passed anyone it would only be to regain his righful position after an illegal move by another driver.

FA - hes not my favourite person, but whilst he came up alongside i didnt notice him actually pull ahead at any point.


stop clutching at straws

 

The improvements would have been and that is against the rules.

 

+1

not something ive heard before either.

 

So there will be no penality... Only a McLaren lover/loser would even think this...

 

Well unfortunately there are few of them in here.