Brundle take on spy row *** possible spoiler***

That is actually two separate issues.

If any of that 780 page document found its way into the team, then clearly they should suffer the full consequences. It is the team's position that Coughlan acted alone and in isolation. If this is untrue then McLaren should suffer for it.

however I see the flexible floor issue differently. The floor was determined to be not in compliance with the regulations after they re-reviwed it, this is no different that Renauult's mass damper system. It was intially determined to be legal and on further review it was banned. I don't see the fact that Stepney provided the information as being relevant, the relevant issue is whether the device was in compliance or not. Do you expect McLaren to not act on that information? Put it another way, if Ferrari learned that a competitor had a device on the car that was providing them with a comeptitive advantage but which may not be in complaince with the rules (i.e. say a wider shoulder-width on the tires...speaking hypothetically, of course) would you expect them to not bring this to the attention to the FIA? Why would a team handicap itself like that? Teams spend a ridiculous amount of resources scouring the pits looking at competitors cars, not only to look for ideas but also to examine if the other cars may be flouting regulations. Bringing the flex-floor to the FIA's attention is nothing wrong, nor is the fact that Stepney provided that information anything other than whistle-blowing. If you have an issue with the flex-floors, it ought to be with Stepney and the FIA, not with McLaren.

Once again, the flex-floor issue and the 780 pages of documents are two different issues. Read the statements from the FIA following the first hearing and you will see the see that this as well.

 

How long did it take for the other teams to introduce high noses after Tyrell showed up with it? One race?

 

This is all fine but what Ferrari would like to know is how the McCheater team came to know about their floor.
If your nieghbor came up to you one day and told you that he thought the tatoo on your wifes ----- was simply fantastic looking. What would by your next thought?

 

McLaren already disclosed to the FIA how they learned about the floor, it is readily available in the meeting notes from the first hearing and in Max Moseley's letter. Take some time to actually do some research.

 

As I recall Ferrari's floor met the FIA rules which stated the floor can only flex so much with a specific force pushing upward against it. BUT FERRARI'S FLOOR WAS FLEXING DOWNWARD - IT STILL MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF UPWARDS FLEXING - THE RULES DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT DOWNWARD FLEXING. So the FIA had to make a "clarification of the rules" to satisfy the McLaren protest, and Ferrari had to change their design, which as legal before the McLaren protest.

 

Ferrari's "flexible floor" was NEVER legal - the issue was the floor mounting system, not the floor panel itself. The FIA F1 Technical regulations, article 3:15, states that all aerodynamic components must be rigidly mounted. Period. The floor is an aerodynamic component. Article 3:17 governs allowable flex of aerodynamic components like wings and floor panel and load tests to determine flex - but the issue was 3:15.

Supposedly, Ferrari was using a spring-loaded mounting system that would hold the floor in static position for the load tests, but would allow the floor to lower slightly under the higher aerodynamic downforce loads. Since the mounting system was not rigid, the mounting system was illegal. The problem was that the scrutineering tests would not catch the mount - so the FIA had to issue a clarification to the test process. If you've bothered to find the FIA instruction after Australia, the change was that "any sprung mounting devices must be removed before the floor load test is performed". The load for the floor test wasn't changed. The FIA just clarified that they would be checking for non-rigid mounts to enforce the existing regulations. This wasn't a loophole Ferrari was exploiting; it was definitely a violation of the regulations that only made it through Australia scrutineering because the FIA wasn't checking it. The floor mount was illegal before the test clarification. Unlike revising wing flex tests to prevent rear wing element flex under 3:17, for example, where a flexing wing only became illegal after the test change, the sprung floor mounts were never legal under 3:15.

Note, also, that Ferrari was not the only team using a sprung, non-rigid floor mounting system - BMW also had a similar system, at the least. Doesn't Ferrari want to know how BMW not only found out about the illegal floor mounts, but was able to copy it so quickly? However, the McLaren conspiracy nuts here don't like to think that this sort of technology "transfer" has been a part of F1 for over 5 decades... So, on to how McLaren got the info - with respect to the floor, who cares, and why should the FIA care? Should the FIA have ignored or rejected McLaren's vague request for clarification about the permissibility of sprung floor mounting systems and allowed Ferrari and BMW to continue using an illegal system, just because another team found out about it? What a preposterous suggestion - the sporting regulations are not subject to "admissibility of evidence" restrictions like a court case, where warrants would be required to ensure evidence found in a search is allowed, for example.

 

Interest point of view from Sir Jackie Stewart

http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_2720960,00.html

 

+2

Great post, Gordon. Very informative.