390 replies to this topic

[LMP900]

Dear President

You and I have known each other for many years and you like I have always had Formula 1 at the centre of our heart. The issues that have arisen have indeed been very distressing, especially when the media have been leaked information from sources that are not fully aware of the truth. These accusations have tarnished Formula 1. This has therefore pushed me to write this letter to you to explain the circumstances of events. I'd like to break the circumstances of events into 3 separate issues which I hope will help clarify the situation for you.

1) My initial doubts

In January of 2007 during the assembly of the new car I first bought up the subject about the reservations I had on the concept and legality of the front floor system with the Chief Designer Aldo Costa and another 2 senior design personnel at Ferrari. I pointed out to them the various points that concerned me and what other teams also might eventually pick-upon. The Chief designer said he would look into it. Later on in the month of February a couple of items had been better disguised before the Australian GP, but these were only cosmetic changes. I asked at the time, if we had asked the FIA for any clarification on the system which we could do, as defined under Article 2.4 in the Technical Regulations. The response was NO we will go with the system as it is and take any advantage up to the time any team makes noises to the FIA, at the minimum we will have at least 1 race under our belts before any action can be taken. Up to mid February I was the person responsible for the legality aspects of the car and each previous year I had always spoken to the Technical Director about any reservations I had on the legality of the cars, he would then go away to discuss the details and then come back later with the answers and explain to me where we stood. So this was a normal situation during the course of my duties. I decided in mid February to step down from my role as Technical Manager for various reasons one of which was this new way of approaching the regulations, I also declined to accept the responsibility in my new role of Team Performance Manager, of being responsible for the legality of the car, and made it clear to various other top team representatives that for me the car was illegal in a couple of areas. Nobody took any notice which was very frustrating.

Later on in February I was still not comfortable with this philosophy and contacted Peter Wright to ask him for his technical advice on the subject of the legality of the front floor system. He said he could give his own advice on the subject but I could only get an official clarification from Charlie Whiting, I said for now his own comments would be sufficient. Later on I sent Peter an e-mail on the details of the system and laid out my concerns on the Ferrari's front floor system. I described that for me it did not conform to Article 3.15 in the Technical Regulations and it could also possibly be conceived as being at the beginning of a crude lever type mass damper.

Peter came back to me a few days later saying it looked very suspicious and asked me how I wanted to handle the situation, I said he could inform Charlie Whiting but please don't mention where this information came from. Peter also asked me what I wanted and what was I trying to achieve from doing this and I replied I'm not looking for anything except a clean and fair championship.

Peter informed me about 10 days before the start of the Championship that he had discussed this system with Charlie Whiting, he had asked him where he had found the source of information but Peter would not tell him, Charlie Whiting said he was aware of some system but not to this extent and would look further into the subject at the Australian GP. Personally I would have thought that because of the seriousness of the claim that it should have been looked into BEFORE the event!

2) Technical reasons for raising the issues

I will try to answer the points in Article 2.4 in the Technical Regulations relating to this system so it can be more clearly seen why Ferrari were not prepared to ask for clarification at the beginning :

a) The front floor is attached to the chassis via a mechanical hinge system at its most rearward point, the most forward support is a body with 1 compression spring and 1 tension spring inside which can be adjusted according to the amount of mass that is fitted to the front floor. There is also a skirt which seals the floor to the chassis which is made out of rubber and Kevlar to help the flexibility and reduce the friction in the system.

b) This models a complex mass-spring-damper system. The system consists of a mass ,B, suspended on a lever arm, a compression coil spring ,C, and a tension coil spring ,T. This tension coil spring can be pre-loaded to compensate for the varying amounts of mass, therefore allowing always equilibrium within the system. A force, F, is applied to the lever arm.

c) There are no immediate implications on other parts of the car for the Ferrari but if system had been allowed it could have meant a huge cost of development for other teams in such areas as chassis and under trays etc to make way for the provision for storing the system and the variable quantity of mass.

d) The possible long term consequences of such a system would be quite substantial because the system is in a crude state of development it could mean the development to chassis the improvement of the hinge system to the main under tray the necessity to increase the quantity of mass in this area which would depend on how much ballast was available therefore by reducing the weight of other components on the car and the weight distribution requirements.

e) The precise way in which the car system would enhance the performance of the car is in my view the following salient points :

i. It allows the car to ride over the kerbs of chicanes harder because of the 14-15mm deflection at the leading edge of the floor and disturbing the car less.

ii. The system would allow for a straighter line through chicanes.

iii. Also a ride and aerodynamic advantage could be obtained because of the spring and mass layout on the front floor with the mass damper coming into effect.

iv. The front plank wear is reduced therefore allowing the car to run lower at the front which allows a gain and aerodynamic advantage in efficiency.

v. The car from around 160-180 kms is about 7-8mm lower at the leading edge of the front floor which multiplies nearly up to 19-20mm lower front wing height at the leading edge. The benefits in terms of ground effects and efficiency would be gained all around the components like turning vanes and front wing at the reduced height relative to the ground.

The above points could give a serious advantage over the competitor’s cars.

On the Friday of the Australian GP I phoned up Mike Coughlan to ask him how things were going generally and if the FIA had taken any action on any issues, he told me no it was very quiet so far. I asked him if he had time to look at the other teams cars, he said he had a brief look and asked me why I wanted to know if the FIA had taken any actions on what issues, so I told him about the e-mail I had sent to the Peter Wright concerning the front floor system on the Ferrari, he asked me for a copy, so I said I’ll send you a copy of the e-mail I sent to Peter Wright. He asked me what I wanted and I replied nothing but a clean and fair championship. I suggested he should make his own judgement and then talk to Charlie Whiting to seek clarification. The rest of the story which unfolded during the event of which I’m sure you're aware of.

I also sent an e-mail to Jo Bauer around the same time of the first e-mail sent to Peter Wright but on another subject. I wanted the FIA to be aware of what was going on again and treated with the same confidentiality as the other issue.

This e-mail contained points relevant to Articles 2.5 and 3.2 in the technical regulations. I pointed out that there was a possibility of the car when sitting statically on the 3 reference plane points was not sitting parallel to the FIAs flat horizontal surface. The advantage from doing this is that you can gain in height relative to the ground on all bodywork facing the ground because by offsetting the 2 front points by -1mm below the reference plane and the rear point that is +1mm above the reference plane. This in terms of height and advantages gained lowers the front wing between 2-3mm towards the ground. This may seem a very small number but any way to reduce the front wing and turning vane height to the ground is a performance advantage. This was subsequently delt with by Charlie Whiting AFTER the Australian GP, but it would have been possible to have modified the cars prior to the Australian GP.

I would like to add the following remarks :

a) I believe Charlie Whiting acted in the best interests of the sport in the way he handled these issues. I also think he never made any reference to the mass damper to reduce any possible aggravation or he believed it was never an issue. By making a general across the board decision on the changes to the regulations no single team was pointed out as having circumnavigated the regulations.

b) The only issues for me are why did he not take action earlier in the event therefore reducing the advantage any team may have had?

c) If McLaren had not asked for clarification of the legality of the Ferrari system would Charlie Whiting still have taken the same action or waited 2 to 3 races or never ?

d) Knowing this information why were the cars allowed through scrutineering when there was possibly some doubt into the eligibility of the cars presented for scrutineering?

3) Personal involvement

Now we come onto the third issue concerning the Ferrari documents.

I was contemplating my next move in my career and required a new challenge. I had been offered by the new Technical Director of Ferrari the possibility in the future to be more involved at the initial design and concept stage of the car. I thought about this and decided to gather some information together to study and try to understand if I could be of any value in this area.

At the same time I was looking for other challenges and also decided to look around in another team where I thought I could make an impact and help bring a team that was further down the grid to be more successful which is what I had helped be a part of in doing with Ferrari. I chose to approach the Honda F1 Team but also thought that to achieve my goal I would need some other people. So I thought first I needed a Chief Designer or Technical Director so I contacted Mike Coughlan.

We met in Barcelona where I was on holiday contemplating my future. I knew Mike and respected his work, the quality of the design and the attention to detail of the McLaren was next to none and mainly down to him. We talked about how we might integrate into another team and what approach we should take. I said what my options were at Ferrari and he suggested perhaps if I was thinking of going in the direction of being involved in initial design and the concept stage that going on a Catia course could be a good idea.

I told him I had prepared some draft contracts which I had in my possession and asked him what terms he would be looking for. I also had documents from Ferrari on me at the time, which I was using to try and understand if I could make the step from basically a chief mechanic into a more senior technical roll of which I had never been trained for. Having these Ferrari documents was completely legitimate because I was still with Ferrari.

Mike looked at some of the documents and was obviously interested in them, I said I didn’t think it was a good idea that he should be looking at these papers. I was obviously wrong to even have let him have access to them. But he said that I could use these in the Catia course. Eventually he took a small amount of these documents and put them in his bag, I asked what was he going to do with them and he said don't worry nothing. We then got into the car because it was time to go to the airport, in the car he saw some other documents which he started to read, he then took them all and pushed them inside his back pack. I didn't think it was a good idea and said you can't do anything with them. He told me don't worry I won't use any of this stuff.

Mike really had no reason to use any of this information at McLaren and to the best of my knowledge he never contemplated the idea. His only intention was to help me out. McLaren is a well respected organization and quite capable of winning the championship without any outside help or information, gained by deceit.

Also you cannot take items from one concept of car design, manufacture them and expect that they are going to benefit the concept of another car design. There was never any talk or intention either of using this information in any other team.

You have to understand that my computer has been confiscated by Ferrari and therefore I cannot supply any documents to back up my statements and only an indication of the dates, but your organization will have copies of the original e-mails I sent regarding my concerns.

I would like to make the point that never at any time was there any malice in my actions towards you and FIA. Also it was never my intention to cause any damage or injury to the reputation of any of the parties involved which I hope is now evident.

In conclusion I accept that perhaps I was nieve but my intentions were to do the best for the sport that I have been involved in for the last 30 year and more importantly a fair and clean Championship.

Yours sincerely

Nigel Stepney

Copy to:

Mr Ron Dennis

Mr Jean Todt

[Greg Locock]

Well, the first few paras are fine. I'm sorry though, nobody in their right mind shows technical documents to the opposition. Ever.

[dosco]

Originally posted by Greg Locock
Well, the first few paras are fine. I'm sorry though, nobody in their right mind shows technical documents to the opposition. Ever.

Seemed a little fishy ... the bad spelling/grammar at the end clinched it for me.

[daFt]

It's an interesting read but the poor spelling and grammar really do it in and make it pretty suspect.

Andy, where did you get this from?

[desmo]

You guys are tough graders. I only noticed two small spelling errors, and the grammar while not stellar was mostly fine.

The hinged floor was hardly secret, I'm pretty sure I posted a link to a short animated video from La Gazetta dello Sport's website highlighting it months ago.

[phantom II]

I didint notis nothing rong.

Originally posted by daFt
It's an interesting read but the poor spelling and grammar really do it in and make it pretty suspect.

Andy, where did you get this from?

[imaginesix]

If this is for real, then Stepney is a snake. My bet is that it's a fake meant to make him look like a snake.

[LMP900]

Well, there you go - what looks like a potential major injustice is actually just a C- English grammar exam paper. If you read, for example, web forums often, you learn to be tolerant of poor grammar, syntax and spelling, and find the sense of what's being posted. And if I look at that in this case, what I see is some allegations against Ferrari and, more worryingly, against the FIA. Yes, they're allegations by a discredited Ferrari ex-employee, but to my mind they are powerful enough to demand investigation. Bearing in mind the low standard of proof that the FIA seems to have required to convict Mclaren, and the extreme penalty, it will be interesting to see if they take any action on these allegations.

It should be simple to prove when the FIA knew of the alleged TMD that Ferrari used in the first race, and to prove whether it actually functioned as a TMD (which I suspected when we discussed it on this forum). Bear in mind that they designed and raced this device after the "clarification" that ruled that Renault's TMD was illegal, and you can't help thinking that if it had been Mclaren that had been found to have raced with a hidden cheat, there would have been a penalty, and it would have been swingeing. So even if the FIA didn't know about this until after the race, if it was a TMD I would have expected them to penalise Ferrari.

My expectation is that the FIA will not act on this, and will not make the relevant emails etc. available, but I could be wrong.

The text is genuine BTW.

[Ben]

Originally posted by LMP900
Well, there you go - what looks like a potential major injustice is actually just a C- English grammar exam paper. If you read, for example, web forums often, you learn to be tolerant of poor grammar, syntax and spelling, and find the sense of what's being posted. And if I look at that in this case, what I see is some allegations against Ferrari and, more worryingly, against the FIA. Yes, they're allegations by a discredited Ferrari ex-employee, but to my mind they are powerful enough to demand investigation. Bearing in mind the low standard of proof that the FIA seems to have required to convict Mclaren, and the extreme penalty, it will be interesting to see if they take any action on these allegations.

It should be simple to prove when the FIA knew of the alleged TMD that Ferrari used in the first race, and to prove whether it actually functioned as a TMD (which I suspected when we discussed it on this forum). Bear in mind that they designed and raced this device after the "clarification" that ruled that Renault's TMD was illegal, and you can't help thinking that if it had been Mclaren that had been found to have raced with a hidden cheat, there would have been a penalty, and it would have been swingeing. So even if the FIA didn't know about this until after the race, if it was a TMD I would have expected them to penalise Ferrari.

My expectation is that the FIA will not act on this, and will not make the relevant emails etc. available, but I could be wrong.

The text is genuine BTW.

Like you I think Stepney's claims are plausible despite his clear lying earlier in the case. It's highly likely IMO that he initially lied in an attempt to distance himself from certain things to save his career prospects.

I've refrained from debating this on the RC because the level on fanboy partisanship is tedious. But I do think that there are some serious issues here. Given the lack of evidence of how McLaren used the Ferrari data, it's perfectly likely that Ferrari had similar data on McLaren, whether they used it or not.

The other aspect to this is the rumour doing the rounds that Todt might be moved out to make way for Ross Brawn's return. I can't help thinking any potential wrongdoing by Ferrari has a scapegoat in waiting.

Ben

[Ross Stonefeld]

Well under Todt's leadership just about anything has been for sale over there. This 'white powder/espionage' thing screamed smear job from day one to me. The thing I couldn't figure out was what had Stepney done to get blacklisted. Montezemolo wants to clear house and would rather go back to the chinese firedrill pistops of old than the win at all costs mentality that brought them temporary success.

And as a racing fan, I wouldn't mind it at all.

[Rosemayer]

That letter was on Grand Prix.Com Hardly a stellar source for accurate info.

[LMP900]

Originally posted by Rosemayer
That letter was on Grand Prix.Com Hardly a stellar source for accurate info.

Surely we can dismiss the idea that Grandprix.com have misrepresented this as a letter from Stepney - they'd be open to serious legal consequences if they did that. And I would have thought it's unlikely that Stepney's made it up, for similar reasons - he's libelling the FIA. What if they don't sue him? That would be interesting, bearing in mind their fondness for the firm smack of government: Michelin, Renault, Mclaren, they've all felt it. I really think they'll have to investigate it now.

Interesting also that Hamilton got no penalty for his driving at Fuji, maybe that shows a more conciliatory attitude from the FIA.

[LMP900]

Originally posted by Ben


Like you I think Stepney's claims are plausible despite his clear lying earlier in the case. It's highly likely IMO that he initially lied in an attempt to distance himself from certain things to save his career prospects.

I've refrained from debating this on the RC because the level on fanboy partisanship is tedious. But I do think that there are some serious issues here. Given the lack of evidence of how McLaren used the Ferrari data, it's perfectly likely that Ferrari had similar data on McLaren, whether they used it or not.

The other aspect to this is the rumour doing the rounds that Todt might be moved out to make way for Ross Brawn's return. I can't help thinking any potential wrongdoing by Ferrari has a scapegoat in waiting.

Ben

I think it would be a pity if the repercussions of this were confined to Ferrari, Ben. If there's any truth to these allegations, the big issue is the competence and impartiality of the FIA. There's an even bigger issue as well IMO, but since it concerns their attitude to racing outside of F1 no-one's interested. Rather like the FIA, in fact.

[Ben]

Originally posted by Rosemayer
That letter was on Grand Prix.Com Hardly a stellar source for accurate info.

Yes grandprix.com is full op op-ed pieces. This always means that people will disagree with it some of the time. Having said that, the letter is from Stepney and they've printed it in its entirety. It's about the only time they haven't offered their own opinion recently. Generally I find that grandprix.com has good sources and is far better at explaining the business links behind all the teams. It's has a very cynical business driven approach to the sport, but that's why I like it.

Originally posted by LMP900
I think it would be a pity if the repercussions of this were confined to Ferrari, Ben.

So do I. I'm just realistic that's all The fact that Mosley has admitted the emails from Stepney exist but won't release them is a clear indication that they don't want this broadened to include Ferrari and themselves.

Ben

[Todd]

Originally posted by LMP900


Mike looked at some of the documents and was obviously interested in them, I said I didn’t think it was a good idea that he should be looking at these papers. I was obviously wrong to even have let him have access to them. But he said that I could use these in the Catia course. Eventually he took a small amount of these documents and put them in his bag, I asked what was he going to do with them and he said don't worry nothing. We then got into the car because it was time to go to the airport, in the car he saw some other documents which he started to read, he then took them all and pushed them inside his back pack. I didn't think it was a good idea and said you can't do anything with them. He told me don't worry I won't use any of this stuff.

Mike really had no reason to use any of this information at McLaren and to the best of my knowledge he never contemplated the idea. His only intention was to help me out. McLaren is a well respected organization and quite capable of winning the championship without any outside help or information, gained by deceit.

I don't know how anyone can read this and claim that Stepney has ANY credibility as a witness.

[autodrome]

I wouldn't slate grandprix.com - its pretty darn good - Joe Saward is well connected, and knows Stepney well. I also am 99% that the letter is genuine - and it will be verified.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by autodrome
I wouldn't slate grandprix.com - its pretty darn good - Joe Saward is well connected, and knows Stepney well. I also am 99% that the letter is genuine - and it will be verified.

If the letter is genuine, Stepney is a nutcase. That is not the thinking of a mentally sound individual. The guy with the red stapler in Office Space? This is him.

[Vegetableman]

Heh heh

Thats it, thats the last straw.

[jcbc3]

Originally posted by McGuire


If the letter is genuine, Stepney is a nutcase. That is not the thinking of a mentally sound individual. The guy with the red stapler in Office Space? This is him.

No, no, no. That's ME!


I may have related this story before, but here goes:

My Dad was employed at a lawyers office and one day a man came in from the street and wanted the office to take on a case of his. The senior lawyer didn't have time so referred the man to my dad. After hearing the mans case and ramblings, my dad went to the senior lawyer and told him they shouldn't take on the case. The senior lawyer asked why, and my dad said "but he is mad!". To which the senior lawyer said.: "That may be so, but you always have to remember. Mad people can be right too".

[LMP900]

Ignoring the facile jibes about Stepney's mental state by people who've never met him, the fact is that he makes specific allegations (about Ferrari's use of a TMD, and the FIA's prior knowledge of that) which can and should be investigated.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by LMP900
Ignoring the facile jibes about Stepney's mental state by people who've never met him, the fact is that he makes specific allegations (about Ferrari's use of a TMD, and the FIA's prior knowledge of that) which can and should be investigated.

Perhaps, but your case is pretty weak as you said yourself. Meanwhile, that is not the most noteworthy thing about this letter, not by a long shot. That is simply what you see, according to your agenda. I have no such agenda in this matter, so what I see immediately is a very confused and pathetic individual -- completely self-focused but lacking any internal guidance system, ironically. A broken arrow. Do you honestly believe for a second that this person went to the FIA out of concern for the sport? Give me a break.

So one problem with your case is credibility. This person has been lying from the start and is still lying. Obviously. I am not going to get into what truths may be contained in all those lies because frankly, I just don't care. You may include me out of all that. Meanwhile, if you are going after Charlie Whiting maybe you could locate someone who doesn't have a screw loose.

[cheapracer]

Yes Nigel I know she's your wife, just be quiet, I'll bring her back in a few days and give me a few hundred too, oh and your car, I need your car.

[cheapracer]

Originally posted by McGuire


Do you honestly believe for a second that this person went to the FIA out of concern for the sport? Give me a break.

Well we have to keep the sport clean and pure, just like its been for sooooo long.

[phantom II]

An arrow has an external guiding system, you fool.

Originally posted by McGuire


....but lacking any internal guidance system, ironically. A broken arrow.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by phantom II
An arrow has an external guiding system, you fool.

Also an internal guidance system, you drooling imbecile. Break off the fletching (feathers to you) and see how she flies.

With respect to our friend Mr. Stepney, here is another suitable metaphor: Heads up, loose gun on deck. Are you able to process that trope successfully?

[McGuire]

Originally posted by cheapracer
Yes Nigel I know she's your wife, just be quiet, I'll bring her back in a few days and give me a few hundred too, oh and your car, I need your car.

LOL.

[LMP900]

Originally posted by McGuire

Do you honestly believe for a second that this person went to the FIA out of concern for the sport? Give me a break.

No, I don't, but that's another irrelevance. I'm perfectly happy for you not to interest yourself in this (what gave you the impression I was?), so don't feel obliged to respond.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by LMP900

No, I don't, but that's another irrelevance. I'm perfectly happy for you not to interest yourself in this (what gave you the impression I was?), so don't feel obliged to respond.

No trouble at all, I will be glad to straighten you out. Stepney's motives are absolutely 100% relevant to this matter. Crucial, actually.

If you are trying to make a case against Whiting for favoritism or bias in not pursuing Ferrari quickly, Stepney's credibility with Whiting is at the heart of the matter. If Whiting believes Stepney is a squirrel or acting on less than honorable intentions -- which is certainly a reasonable reaction, and you can see Peter Wright raising that very issue with Stepney in the letter -- he is going to back off and act much more cautiously and slowly in investigating Stepney's charges. What he is NOT going to do is take Stepney at full face value and go in guns a-blazing, as you seem to demand.

[Dragonfly]

Since this is The Technical Forum I expect not to be beaten hard asking a stupid question.
How can the floor, which is claimed be triggered to move to a different position only after a certain amount of force is exceeded, act as a TMD? My Idea about the TMD is that it is moving smoothly and in proportion to the magnitude of the oscillations of the chassis.

[DOHC]

Doesn't he describe a passive device? Then it can hardly move before the car hits say a kerb.

[Canuck]

Originally posted by McGuire
include me out...

Nice choice of words.

[Greg Locock]

"How can the floor, which is claimed be triggered to move to a different position only after a certain amount of force is exceeded"

where does it say that?

[Fat Boy]

I believe the front end of the floor moves out of the way due to aero forces. That was what I got out of the letter.

As far as it's mass damper characteristics, this is not terribly different from what Greg has described previously in using the engine / mountings of a road car as a mass damper. It's a little less overt than last year's systems, but can be nearly as effective. To be honest, I'd be surprised if they weren't doing the same type of thing with other systems on the car.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Canuck

Nice choice of words.

Sam Goldwyn.

... to me, any body of suitable mass can be a tuned damper. Where it fits in the FIA taxonomy is another question I suppose.

[zac510]

To me the difference between the two systems is that Renault's was claimed to work over low speed bumps (which may only be half of the story) whereas Ferrari's is claimed to be working at high speed under aerodynamic influence.

[Greg Locock]

My take is that he is describing two different things, possibly using the same hardware.

Firstly, a sprung floor that responds to aero forces.

Secondly a TMD, possibly using the sprung floor as part of the mechanism.

But, the decription is confusing.

e) The precise way in which the car system would enhance the performance of the car is in my view the following salient points :

i. It allows the car to ride over the kerbs of chicanes harder because of the 14-15mm deflection at the leading edge of the floor and disturbing the car less.

Implication is that it decouples the mass from the body - OK.

ii. The system would allow for a straighter line through chicanes.

? OK, but why does it need a separate point?

iii. Also a ride and aerodynamic advantage could be obtained because of the spring and mass layout on the front floor with the mass damper coming into effect.

As discussed with the Renault system. The advantage is primarily that the vertical contact patch load varies less.

iv. The front plank wear is reduced therefore allowing the car to run lower at the front which allows a gain and aerodynamic advantage in efficiency.

Implies it is a movable aerodynamic device, somehow it affects the general ride height, not just short term oscillations.

v. The car from around 160-180 kms is about 7-8mm lower at the leading edge of the front floor which multiplies nearly up to 19-20mm lower front wing height at the leading edge. The benefits in terms of ground effects and efficiency would be gained all around the components like turning vanes and front wing at the reduced height relative to the ground.

This bit confuses me. I don't see how a TMD, or even a movable floor in the car, helps in this way.

[angst]

Originally posted by McGuire


No trouble at all, I will be glad to straighten you out. Stepney's motives are absolutely 100% relevant to this matter. Crucial, actually.

If you are trying to make a case against Whiting for favoritism or bias in not pursuing Ferrari quickly, Stepney's credibility with Whiting is at the heart of the matter. If Whiting believes Stepney is a squirrel or acting on less than honorable intentions -- which is certainly a reasonable reaction, and you can see Peter Wright raising that very issue with Stepney in the letter -- he is going to back off and act much more cautiously and slowly in investigating Stepney's charges. What he is NOT going to do is take Stepney at full face value and go in guns a-blazing, as you seem to demand.

But, if the system was described tot Peter Wright such that he immediately doubted its legality, then surely the same must have occured to Charlie Whiting - indeed, once he was forced to publicly acknowledge the system he was pretty adamant that it "clearly" was in breach of article 3.15.

Why would they not investigate what is seemingly an obvious breach of the technical regulations until after the first race (if we are to believe even that)?

The honour or otherwise of Stepney's intentions are irrelevent. If the device was as described by Stepney, and was clearly illegal then action should have been taken. Bear in mind Whiting did not know where the information came from. He had only the information, which he was then quickly able to make judgement upon once reminded by McLaren's request for clarification.

The issue here is not Stepney's motivation, nor anybody's supposed doubt of such, but the credibility of the FIA. What is most interesting is that what Max said is that the e-mails Stepney sent did not detail the system, but the letter from Stepney contradicts that. Might be time to make those e-mails public Max, just to put all our minds to rest as to the.......confusion surrounding these seemingly incompatible versions of events.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by angst


But, if the system was described tot Peter Wright such that he immediately doubted its legality, then surely the same must have occured to Charlie Whiting

How can you make that leap? You don't know any of that.

[Fat Boy]

Originally posted by Greg Locock

v. The car from around 160-180 kms is about 7-8mm lower at the leading edge of the front floor which multiplies nearly up to 19-20mm lower front wing height at the leading edge. The benefits in terms of ground effects and efficiency would be gained all around the components like turning vanes and front wing at the reduced height relative to the ground.

This bit confuses me. I don't see how a TMD, or even a movable floor in the car, helps in this way.

I can help here.

Front ride height is the limiting factor when it comes to plank wear / bottoming. These cars run a fair chunk of rake (nose down, tail up) because that makes the most downforce. When you consider the rear 3rd bumps stops and the excess ride height you have to run for aero reasons, the rear of the skid / plank just isn't touching much.

So bottoming the front of the skid becomes very critical in car setup. The height of the front wing is very sensitive, the lower the better. This is a controlled dimension in tech and it's measured from the 'flat floor' reference plane. If you take the rules at face value, then to get the front wing lower, you have to raise the rear of the car, which raises the CG an hurts low speed performance. If you have 70mm of rake in the car over the wheelbase 'X' and the distance from the front of the floor to the front of the wing is 'Y', then, on the racetrack at speed, you can run the car Y/X*70 mm lower. Apparently, in this case, it was worth nearly 20mm. That's huge for aerodynamic performance.

So that's pretty much what he was talking about in that part of the letter. I also got the impression that they weren't using the forward floor as a mass damper, but the potential was there.

As far as allowing a straighter line through chicanes, I believe that is because it would deflect out of the way instead of wearing the skid / lifting the tires off the ground when bottoming.

[NRoshier]

fat boy, thank you, that sounds like a good advantage to have.

[angst]

Originally posted by McGuire


How can you make that leap? You don't know any of that.

From Nigel Stepney's letter to Max Mosley..

"Peter (Wright) came back to me a few days later saying it looked very suspicious and asked me how I wanted to handle the situation..."

[McGuire]

Originally posted by angst


From Nigel Stepney's letter to Max Mosley..

"Peter (Wright) came back to me a few days later saying it looked very suspicious and asked me how I wanted to handle the situation..."

That is exactly my point. What do you KNOW? All you know is Stepney's version of what Wright said. What is Wright's version of the conversation? You aren't the least bit curious, hmm. And in any event, that conversation does not speak at all to what Whiting thought or knew or what he ought to do about it.

You know, this is all pretty simple when you get right down to it. You can bang on your pots and pans all you want, but the FIA is under no obligation whatsoever to justify its actions to you.

[Canuck]

I don't know - anyone that levels a $100,000,000 fine for cheating, and is accused of not investigating other (oft-thought-to-be-favoured) alleged cheaters runs the risk of looking like government instead of a fair, impartial patron of sport if they aren't transparent about things now.

[McGuire]

I hear you, but the FIA is under no obligation to see things that way.

And "transparency" is sort of a red herring here. Your haters are going to believe what they wish to believe regardless of any facts, just as they believe what they wish in the alleged absence of facts.

[angst]

Originally posted by McGuire


That is exactly my point. What do you KNOW? All you know is Stepney's version of what Wright said. What is Wright's version of the conversation? You aren't the least bit curious, hmm. And in any event, that conversation does not speak at all to what Whiting thought or knew or what he ought to do about it.

You know, this is all pretty simple when you get right down to it. You can bang on your pots and pans all you want, but the FIA is under no obligation whatsoever to justify its actions to you.

Ok, the FIA aren't under any obligation to let us know. But the only reason that we know only Stepney's version is because the FIA are being so secretive. But, why shouldn't the FIA be under obligation to show that they are working in a fair and equitable manner toward the compretitors? It is, after all, an undertaking they made to the EU....

And "transparency" is sort of a red herring here. Your haters are going to believe what they wish to believe regardless of any facts, just as they believe what they wish in the alleged absence of facts.

You say "transparency is a red herring here", but that is simply a manipulation of the situation, because you then go on to say "Your haters are going to believe what they wish to believe regardless of any facts" - well how can you say that when the facts are so clearly not being made available.

As for "just as they believe what they wish in the alleged absence of facts.", its not just the absence of facts, is that (as with the Melbourne Court Case), Max makes a statement to the effect that he's happy to release this documentation into the open, and then doesn't. The fact that he witholds information begs the question......why? If by producing the e-mails the FIA could deflect all complications, why wouldn't they do it?

Even in English Courts now, the refusal to answer a questions in a police interview (right to silence) is regarded as open to inference...

So give me one good reason why, if the e-mails that NS sent are as Max Mosley described them, and offered to make them public, he does not?

[McGuire]

Originally posted by angst


Ok, the FIA aren't under any obligation to let us know. But the only reason that we know only Stepney's version is because the FIA are being so secretive. But, why shouldn't the FIA be under obligation to show that they are working in a fair and equitable manner toward the compretitors?

Who says they are not?

Also, I don't agree that the FIA is necessarily being "secretive." That is your view.

[McGuire]

"...we're (the FIA) here to represent the other team (Ferrari)" - Max Mosley, interview ITV F1"

-angst's sig line


This tells me all I need to know. Max's statement here was totally appropriate and spoke right to the point. No offense, but on this matter you are a partisan and a polemecist and a sorehead. You don't get it, you don't want to get it, and therefore you are never going to get it.

[Limits]

I am undecided myself, but do you believe that FIA would have behaved the same had the roles (McLarens and Ferraris) been reversed? I am not so sure. Have FIA only done what is required from them or have they taken upon themselves to investigate matters that normally would be outside their area of responsibility?

In reality, FIA is behaving rather strangely. Why did they give Alonso a amnesty when they knew what information he had? Why are they putting representatives in the McLaren garage to ensure equality?

Why now? Why is it more important to make sure a team does not favor one of their drivers at the last race? Because it is about the championship? The championship start at the first race, first qualifying. If a driver does not get equal treatment it is likely he will never be a championship contender in the first place. To make sure all drivers have equal chance to his team mate to become a champion, for sure they must monitor the actions of the teams from the first practice at the first race? Maybe they should oversee the teams actions also during testing? What simulator software are they using? Maybe Alonso is driving on a slightly tweaked version of Interlagos, were the radius of a couple of corners are slightly altered?

Were is the rule that say that both drivers must get equal treatment?

[McGuire]

I agree, the whole thing is totally screwed up and there is mendacity and dissembling on all sides. But this is what you get when you have this style of competition and the competitors behave this way. To me all your objections against the FIA are neither here nor there. This situation stinks regardless of what the FIA does, which is going to be wrong no matter what it does.

[Limits]

Yes, but in many parts of this FIA had the option to interfere or not to interfere. It can easily be argued that FIA was doing Ferraris laundry, but it is not so easy to prove. Big problem here is that although I think FIA is probably corrupt, corruption exists in all organizations of this size that are somehow involved with money and the flow of money. I think actually FIA would look quite good in comparison to, for instance, FIFA or the IOK.

But I am under the impression that Mosley have trouble leaving his personal relations to certain people out of his decisions at the office.