That just makes TWO occasions where a McLaren driver intentionally crashed out his WDC-vying competitor without penalty.

I think mclaren got away too lightly at melbourne 1998 too. Dennis claims his drivers made a deal that whoever got thru the first corner in number one, would win the race. Then they turned down the revs and did not race at all for 58 laps. The drivers where booed away from the podium, also because dc moved over in plain vieuw of everybody for mika and the british press, especially autosport, defended mclaren for not providing a race for the fans. They made amockery of the sport.

I still regard that as one of the most nasty ugly offending actions ever witnessed in F1. Yet they got away with it.
So i seriously think mclaren and lewis fans should sing a somewhat lower tone with their hopeless accusation fia is ferrari biased. If that was the case they shouldv won at least 80% of the last 25 wdcs.

I never quite got that one. Of course, it was lame. Of course it stunk, I didn't like it a bit.

But there were so many races in which one team mate let by another one... Senna let Berger pass once (Suzuka?), DC let Mika pass twice... Why send two cars if you're not allowed to play a bit with it (we're not talking about blocking other cars or use Irvine to crash out Villeneuve or whatever).

Ooops, sorry to warm that discussion up

Anyway, I think the FIA has taken good decisions, bad decisions and worse decisions, but I don't see any team has got away with more things than another. Every team has had it's share of DQs (from the top of my head Ferrari, McLaren, Honda, Toyota, Williams, Renault as Benetton - for BMW Sauber I only have the discussions from Brazil last year in my head).

Of course, few people care if Barrichello is DQed after this year's season opener, because usually the attention is on the 2 leading teams and heavily biased by personal expectations.

So in the end there isn't much evidence to support the assumption that the FIA is punishing one team more/less than the others.

Furthermore, inconsistency in rulings is something that can happen to all of us. One judge may think you caused a car accident, the other may see you as the accident's victim. That's what appeals are for, and that's what we'll get.

And yet this was only one or two races after Japan at the end of the previous year, where Irvine had a monsterous lead over Villeneuve and Schumacher... until the Ferrari team orders came to slow down by 10 seconds a lap, get in Villeneuve's way in order to let Schumacher past the both of them.

After that unsporting behaviour, I dont know why anyone would complain about the Melbourne race.

The bumper book of famous Belgians?

One race after Jerez '97, McLaren pulled this trick in two straight races.

Like the other poster said, mclaren pulled that trick 2 races in a row. And at that japanese gp it was a race. Mclaren came to melbourne with no intention to race and decided after turn one to tell the fans goodbye. For us europeans go back to bed. The most staggering was the defence of the same people who now blame the fia for anti racing manners, stewart, moss, hughes, lauda, autosport. Ive been unpleasantly suprised with them pointing a moral finger.

It would also be nice to notice symonds ''rubbished' claims the FIA is ferrari biased, or is on a crusade against mclaren, like the aforementioned 'experts' claimed.

I guess one can conclude nothing of significance from race day has ever affected Ferrari from not winning a title where the same can not be said for their competitors.

Plus wasn't it also "team orders" between Williams and McLaren? I mean when JV deliberately let pass Mika and DC.

(Williams team radio: "Hakkinen quite quick and very helpful. Be aware that Hakkinen is now position two. He probably wants to win. Very helpful. Keep concentrating, Jacques. Hakkinen is immediately behind. Last lap. Last lap. Hakkinen has been very helpful. Jacques, position two. Don't let me down, Jacques. We discussed this... ")

Luckily for McLaren and Williams the MS-JV incident became an even bigger scandal, so nobody really remembers that any more.

Mosely stated had McLaren argued their case better on the bargeboard issue of Malaysia 99, Ferrari would never have won the appeal.

Says a lot about Mosley, doesn't it?

But McLaren's track record defending themselves or being the whistleblower is simply dismal, considering the armada of lawyers they use. And I'm not even considering last years mess. Seems Ron Dennis so far never considered poaching Ferrari's lawyers.

But you know, very few ever asked the question in Malaysia 99. How did McLaren know, when even Ferrari didn't knew?

Wich in turn would prove that Ferrari does their best to adhere the rules and others not so. Or would you suggest otherwise?

Ferrari is a bit more conservative in their engineering approach. That maybe explains it.

However the floor issue of last year shows that Ferrari tries to come up with borderline stuff too.

I remember autosport jubilantly screaming RACE COLLUSION CANNOt BE PROVED, SAYS FIA, giving more evidence that the FIA isnt ferrari biased. I do remember that the FIA decided to monitor pitwall - car communications more as they did suspect there was a deal between williams and mclaren.

I think the only thing it proves beyond doubt is that autosport and most british media, are mclaren/ williams biased in great, great lenghts.

It's sad that McLaren even had to take it to court, because really they are not responsible for upholding the law.

Actually you've helped to prove the point I was making (rather badly).
It seems people were thinking I was trying to defend or attack one particular team or another, when what I meant is that going into that Melbourne race, team orders were an established part of the sport, that everyone was using to their advantage.
And so somebody did it again. Should have been no big surprise.

And those occasions are?

Perhaps because on the start finish line it was so evidently blatantly fixed? it's one thing making a team mate slow down a little bit in one corner and his teammate miraculously getting past and going on to do better.

But to slow down someone who was about to win the race in order to hand it to a guy who was not in desperate need of the points in the championship battle?

People go to races to see racing, not a staged finish formation I would guess. So on the scale of team orders, it was pretty damned blatant and obvious and I guess the FIA had to be seen to stamp the practice out and rightly so.

Of course it still goes on, but this time it goes on beforehand in team meetings where drivers are told what is expected of them in certain situations and left to execute the procedure themselves...saving the team pitwall from incriminating themselves via the team radio.

I am in agreement with you that all teams have been on the receiving end at times from the FIA, but I think mostly this goes unnoticed unless its the top two teams. No-one really cares if Monkey A from the back of the grid gets a drive thru penalty and its easily forgotten, but if its Lewis Hamilton or Kimi Raikkonen or anyone involved in a championship dogfight we are all up in arms.

The problem is the FIA is still inconsistent in its interpretation and application of penalties regarding racing incidents all the way down the grid, the unfortunate side effect is that we notice the ones that happen at the top teams and they get seized upon.

You replied to a part of message that the mclaren drivers where booed of the podium because dc let mika pass in race 1 of a championship. This is in contrast to race 14 of the 97 championship where irvine was out of the equation for a wdc.

Further i took that example because of the no race tactics that seems to be the main problem against the hamilton penalty at last weeks spa, not especially for dcs moving over. It is weird that the same people who cry fia is killing on track action, went at great lenghts to defend mclarens tactics at melbourne 98. I remember the once respected nigel roebuck saying"people who accuse mclaren of no racing at melbourne forget one thing: mclaren only came to melbourne to win the race as consumately as possible". I find that hypocrite.

That twisting and turning of opinions is also evident in other races. At spa 98, jordan screamed out over the radio to ralf to not pass damon hill. Not one of the current journos cried he was killing on track action. Then came monaco 2007 where hamilton held his famous press conference about him being number 2 and suddenly all those journos went howling like little dog puppies searching for mother milk that their Lewis, was held back and not allowed to race Alonso. Dennis went on to claim with tears in his eyes that hed never employed teamorders and that all drivers are equal in mclaren. For the causal fan it becomes very confusing.

Sorry folks... couldn't resist posting this ( from another no-racing ) forum....


----------------------------------------

Ferrari international Assistance (FiA)
This exclusive Ferrari only membership club has many benefits. Including:

Anti overtaking assurance
Been overtaken? Feel a bit silly? Don't worry, we'll rule out the other party, even if it’s embarrassingly obvious that they're faster than you

Can’t drive in the wet?
Can’t cope with a little rain, don’t worry. We’ll ensure that the other party will lose their position ahead of you, ready for your mediocre inconsistent performance to keep you in the championship.

Exclusive access to a secret ‘second lane' in the pits
Just to make things a little bit easier we've arranged a private second lane, just for you

Overtaken a car by cutting a chicane and NOT giving back your place
Exclusive offer for Ferrari drivers – you can decide not to give back the position and we won’t penalise you for it, just like in Hungary 2006

Guaranteed world championship?
Had a crash? Need to win the world championship? Don't worry just limp across the track and take off your nearest championship title contender - we'll do the rest

A bit strapped? Need extra cash?
Simply get one of your team to tell someone else how you make your cars and then we’ll make sure they take the rap.

Bits falling off your car? Looking a bit dangerous?
At Ferrari International Assistance we operate a 'blind eye' policy just for Ferrari drivers

Been a bit silly? Taken off another driver whilst following the safety car?
It's ok, as long as you didn’t hurt yourself. I mean, who is Force India anyway? And how dare they be in front of you

A bit bored? Want some extra action?
With FIA plus you can join our Chairman at his exclusive club and take part in a number of 'additional membership activities'

Want to run some illegal aerodynamics?
No problem, as long as the car is Red, you can have flexing wings, or oversized barge boards anything you like!

Has your rival come up with a great idea, before you?
One quick telephone call on our free 0800 number and we’ll make sure it gets banned overnight. No questions asked.

Not sure when you might need us next?
Relax. Check out our track record. We're confident that we'll be able to make something up on the spot that will get you out of any pickle that you might find yourself in

For an immediate response you can call our number free of charge. Our call centre staff Bernard, Max and Charles, are waiting for your call.

Ferrari international Assistance - Making it up as we go along for over 100 years

nfa

Christ alive. Shouldn't a 'joke' that old should be in the Nostalgia forum...


In answer to the original question, there seems then to have been plenty of times Ferrari have been punished, and same with McLaren. I guess those intent on finding FIA bias will see it if they want to, further undermining the credibility of the current round of whining.

If I truly believed a sport was systematically fixed, I would not watch it....and I doubt a man of Ron's undoubted intelligence would spend have his life competing in it. Or Frank. Or Flavio. Or etc. etc.

I think it's safe to presume many have simply jumped on the current bandwaggon as you can feel "safe" hiding behind the ill-informed press and various talking heads apparent outrage that "our Lew" has been hard done by. Ferrari have to comply with the rules, and when they have fallen short they've been punished....just like every other team. Dry your tears and look forward to Monza...I read there's rain, is that proof that "god" is bias towards McLaren?

Good grief you really need to get a sense of humour, lifes too short to be so bitter and twisted.

You're absolutely right. I always thought the proper punishment would have seen Schui starting the race from Nice

Hilarious, and sadly, very close to the truth...

Oh, it was undoubtedly funny....the first time it was said.

Do you know what small children are like when they first learn a joke, and then repeat the same joke endlessly? Now, you might continue to laugh when you've heard it for the 200th time, but most (adults anyway) realise that not laughing at a joke you've heard over-and-over-and-over again is not necessarily a sign that you've had a sense of humour bypass.

Perhaps you laugh at everything constantly, simply to "prove" to those around you that you are not "bitter and twisted", and good for you if that's the case. I'm sure you have the infinite respect of your friends and family as a result...

Nope - no sense of humour at all.

FIA = FIAT

Just as I suspected... do think he wears red specs and walks round with his ferrari cap and jacket all day?

( and for the record I'm not "anti-ferrari" I've met and known a number of people who actually work there and there a great bunch and a great team, but there does appear to be a distinct bias whether real or not peception is everything )

Re Fuji - They all got the same email - they were just playing possum and trying one on - how can an email sent to a local distribution list nmiss just Ferrari. It may not have been opened though ;)

I though that Heiki's was far less debatable than lewis'

Dont quite know which thread to mention this in... but has this topic been discussed yet
and whether the FIA will now launch an investigation?


About McLarens "j-damper"...

By the time Ferrari had cottoned on to the thing last year, McLaren,
(who had negotiated an exclusive use agreement with the said boffin)
had been using it for more than two full seasons. Knowing that McLaren
wanted to keep the device secret from everyone else, Ferrari cynically
calculated (correctly, as it happened) that McLaren would prefer to
let Ferrari make its own copy without permission rather than make a fuss.

Go and stick that in your pipes, all you rabid Ferrari fans who still naively
believe that spying in F1 only goes one way and that Ferrari is oh, so
much cleaner than the low-lifes at Woking.

http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft20748.html

WOW, how original.

(British GP, Michael taking penalty on the last lap)

The problem was, IIRC, that the penalty should not have been handed out that way that late in the race in the first place. There was a rule at that time (and still is, I think) that if a drive-through penalty is handed out during the last few laps of the race, the penalty automatically is converted into time being added to your total race time. So Michael should never have received a drive-through in the first place in that race (IIRC it took the stewards far too long to decide on a penalty for whatever it was Michael did in that race, so when the team was informed of the penalty, it was already too late and it SHOULD have been a time addition). I think it was also mentioned back then that the team (Brawn etc.) were aware of this rule but just to play it safe they decided to have Michael go into the pits on the last lap, because there was not enough time to discuss the penalty with the officials during the race, so they decided to do what the notification told them to. Had the penalty been handled correctly, Ferrari would never even have been in a situation where they would have had the option of doing a drive-through on the last lap.

More durable tire for two or three more laps during a stint in events were three sets of tires were a minimum. And after all these years you still think that to be the definitive, solid approval that Bridgestone had to keep the upperhand if they were mandated to run three, if not four times as long the next year? While your opponent has a name to lose in building the most suitable tires used in endurance racing and thus has far more experience with compounds that must be good for at least 300 km? And this opponent actually suggesting the rule change to begin with?
You still believe that Michelin was convinced about the superiority of Bridgestone remaining intact, but wanted that rule change nevertheless for whatever reasons? Do you really still believe that Michelin just wanted a rule change even if that likely wasn't to work into their favour either?

Oh my God.....


Henri

Henri,

It was Ferrari who pushed the most for the 2005 tire regulation change.

Tell me where I can find that and then I'll believe you for at least that fact.
But what I still can't believe is why they did such because of the reasons I stated.
Then that was the most stupid thing Ferrari and Bridgestone ever did.

Henri

See post #12 http://forums.autosport.com/showthread.php...postid=2138700&

And just what did he lose there?

His Life time points were kept

His wins, poles were kept

Ferrari kept the points for the WCC

So instead of finishing second in the standings - when he said second meant nothing as first was all he wanted - he finished at the bottom - with an * next to his name listing all of his points

He was never actualy penalized anything for that fiasco.

Schumacher France 2002 - drive through penalty for cutting white line while exiting the pits - goes onto win race.

Yeah sure Ferrari never get penalized .

Don't be ridiculous. He had to spend a gruelling FIVE DAYS talking about road safety at FIA demonstrations. I mean, that's nearly a WEEK.

It is an entire working week, actually!

And moreover, he couldn't name himself vice-champion that year (though he kept all his wins and points)! That's some really heavy punishment, mate!