Jo Bauer:
Is he the same person that Ron Denis used to disqualify Ferrari in Malaysia?
If yes, then it's like a boomrang!
FIA technical delegate Jo Bauer: Is he the same...
Started by
Hoss
, Mar 27 2000 10:20
12 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
Pascal
-
- 22,999 posts
- Joined: September 99
Administrator Emeritus
Posted 27 March 2000 - 10:21
Same guy...
#3
Rainstorm
-
- 1,313 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 27 March 2000 - 10:27
Heh, someone should play Ron Dennis a tape of what he said on the Ferrari appeal, about how Jo Bauer and his equipment is accurate and that Mr. Bauer's decision must be accepted ;)
#4
Todd
-
- 18,936 posts
- Joined: September 99
Member
Posted 27 March 2000 - 10:38
It is fittingly ironic, but Jo Bauer should have been removed from his capacity at the FIA before the Suzuka GP. Why does he still have this job?
------------------
Forza Michael Schumacher,
Todd
------------------
Forza Michael Schumacher,
Todd
#5
Witt
-
- 3,308 posts
- Joined: November 98
Member
Posted 27 March 2000 - 18:42
yeah it's him alright, but like Todd said, why the hell does this guy still have a job after causing so much trouble last year?
#6
Williams
-
- 6,829 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 27 March 2000 - 19:27
I'll state the same thing I just posted on another similar topic:
The guy who is failing the cars is the guy you want in there, he's probably the only one in the whole chain of command who is doing his job properly ! It's not his fault if (a) the teams can't build a car properly or (b) the FIA can't inspect a circuit properly. If the circuit was really that bad, then the race should not have been held there.
The other thing is that the person who failed the Ferraris last year was not considered to have been at fault, but in fact the measurement instrumentation was considered to be "inaccurate".
The guy who is failing the cars is the guy you want in there, he's probably the only one in the whole chain of command who is doing his job properly ! It's not his fault if (a) the teams can't build a car properly or (b) the FIA can't inspect a circuit properly. If the circuit was really that bad, then the race should not have been held there.
The other thing is that the person who failed the Ferraris last year was not considered to have been at fault, but in fact the measurement instrumentation was considered to be "inaccurate".
#7
Samurai
-
- 5,415 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 27 March 2000 - 19:35
Williams fair post.
I still think the measurements of the Ferrari bargeboards (at the time/settings of the race!!) were accurate. Stuff after that was just expensive lawyer flimflaming, which gots no place in competetive sports.
If DC has to be DQed because of the regulations, then it can't be helped, but get a load of the double standard!!!
I still think the measurements of the Ferrari bargeboards (at the time/settings of the race!!) were accurate. Stuff after that was just expensive lawyer flimflaming, which gots no place in competetive sports.
If DC has to be DQed because of the regulations, then it can't be helped, but get a load of the double standard!!!
#8
Todd
-
- 18,936 posts
- Joined: September 99
Member
Posted 27 March 2000 - 23:06
Williams,
If Bauer does his job so well, why were 2 Ferraris with mis-aligned bargeboards, a Sauber with a previous season's wing, and a McLaren with a low mounted front wing, allowed to start GPs? He needs to conduct an effective pre-race inspection as well as flaunt his power to undue the achievements of men with physical courage and skill at the end of the day.
------------------
Forza Michael Schumacher,
Todd
If Bauer does his job so well, why were 2 Ferraris with mis-aligned bargeboards, a Sauber with a previous season's wing, and a McLaren with a low mounted front wing, allowed to start GPs? He needs to conduct an effective pre-race inspection as well as flaunt his power to undue the achievements of men with physical courage and skill at the end of the day.
------------------
Forza Michael Schumacher,
Todd
#9
Ellen UK
-
- 1,207 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 28 March 2000 - 00:46
Samurai, what double standards??? so far the two episodes are identical. Both teams found irregular, both teams DSQed, both teams appealed. Ferrari won the appeal, McLaren still has to go through the process. If they can prove the non-intentionality of their mistake and get their points back, you will really need to shut up once and for all.
#10
gyro
-
- 9 posts
- Joined: October 99
New Member
Posted 28 March 2000 - 03:43
Jo Bauer, Charles Whiting... Who ever. What's the problem with them, lack of knowledge?
No.
Today it's McLaren's front wing, yesterday it was Ferrari's bargeboards. He/they found it illegal, so it seems to be illegal. After that starts again a race of appeals and excuses, Ferrari won it last year so would McLaren this year. Circus.
Both use millions of dollars for developing and give us excuses like a child who wants a lollipop. If they got catched, why they can't stand with that like a man (or like a professional team)?
Anyone have cartoon for McLaren?
No.
Today it's McLaren's front wing, yesterday it was Ferrari's bargeboards. He/they found it illegal, so it seems to be illegal. After that starts again a race of appeals and excuses, Ferrari won it last year so would McLaren this year. Circus.
Both use millions of dollars for developing and give us excuses like a child who wants a lollipop. If they got catched, why they can't stand with that like a man (or like a professional team)?
Anyone have cartoon for McLaren?
#11
Samurai
-
- 5,415 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 28 March 2000 - 09:25
teeheehee!! 
funny pic gyro!
Ellen O.K. if DC's DQ is overturned because of the Ferrari precedent at Malaysia O.K., no double standard.
But if so, what's the use of scrutineering, regulations, etc. in the first place? I think it's a real mess because they did some flimflaming for Ferrari last year, in the first place.
funny pic gyro!
Ellen O.K. if DC's DQ is overturned because of the Ferrari precedent at Malaysia O.K., no double standard.
But if so, what's the use of scrutineering, regulations, etc. in the first place? I think it's a real mess
because they did some flimflaming for Ferrari last year, in the first place.
#12
Williams
-
- 6,829 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 28 March 2000 - 09:29
Todd
I don't know, does the FIA rules say that he has a choice as to when to do his inspections ? And if they inspect the cars before the race, wouldn't they have to do it on the grid ? Is that practical ?
I don't know, does the FIA rules say that he has a choice as to when to do his inspections ? And if they inspect the cars before the race, wouldn't they have to do it on the grid ? Is that practical ?
#13
Todd
-
- 18,936 posts
- Joined: September 99
Member
Posted 28 March 2000 - 10:06
Williams,
They do perform pre-race inspections, although I don't know exactly when. In the case of Sauber, who incorrectly installed a wing from the previous year, the pre-race should have caught it. The FIA have enough people on hand to know whether or not a team fits an entirely different wing assembly between inspection and the race. There is also the fact that Bauer's post race inspection didn't uncover Ferrari's barge-board irregularities. Only McLaren knew about them. That is extremely suspicious in my eyes. Did Ron Dennis have a hand in making sure there was a problem in the first place?
They do perform pre-race inspections, although I don't know exactly when. In the case of Sauber, who incorrectly installed a wing from the previous year, the pre-race should have caught it. The FIA have enough people on hand to know whether or not a team fits an entirely different wing assembly between inspection and the race. There is also the fact that Bauer's post race inspection didn't uncover Ferrari's barge-board irregularities. Only McLaren knew about them. That is extremely suspicious in my eyes. Did Ron Dennis have a hand in making sure there was a problem in the first place?
