|
|
Post by robmarsh on Mar 12, 2020 9:31:26 GMT
What is your take on this Ferrari/FIA agreement. On most other sites the consensus is that Ferrari are guilty but that is what I would expect from the people that comment on those sites. The FIA couldn't prove anything though they implied that Ferrari were possibly guilty which I thought was unfair. I know F1 engineers push things to the limit but I can't believe that Ferrari would deliberately cheat, they have too much to lose and they are always under close scrutiny. I think the move by Tonto and the others was gamesmanship to either disturb Ferrari or as a push for power in the new Concorde agreement negotiations. The odious little man, BCE, was just shit stirring as usual. He really adds no value to the debate and the press should stop quoting him.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Mar 12, 2020 21:20:55 GMT
Ferrari? bend the rules? as if, now I do wish to be a bit cautious in my response as am surrounded by red car fans and tongue firmly in cheek may i tactfully remind you wonderful Ferrari fans what the rest of us had to endure when Ferrari was sweeping all aside with the alleged assistance of the FIA, how exactly do you measure a barge board? but on a more serious note
there is the thought that despite Mercedes's domination for the past - for what seems an eternity- Ferrari are still the number one draw so maybe the FIA did find out how Ferrari managed to expand the literacy of the rules, I would not call it cheating - Toyota did that in rallying and Ross Brawn knew how to and theFIA today knew it would cause so much hassle they agreed with Ferrari to quietly drop their invention, what the motive is of Tonto et al - you are probably right Rob, and we mustn't forget ego here, here you have one of the largest car manufacturers dominating F1 and here you are - Ferrari are still more popular
as a Lotus fan I am well aware of some of the antics ACBC got up to - and they are the ones we are aware of
|
|
|
|
Post by René on Mar 14, 2020 11:58:53 GMT
What is your take on this Ferrari/FIA agreement. On most other sites the consensus is that Ferrari are guilty but that is what I would expect from the people that comment on those sites. The FIA couldn't prove anything though they implied that Ferrari were possibly guilty which I thought was unfair. I know F1 engineers push things to the limit but I can't believe that Ferrari would deliberately cheat, they have too much to lose and they are always under close scrutiny. I think the move by Tonto and the others was gamesmanship to either disturb Ferrari or as a push for power in the new Concorde agreement negotiations. The odious little man, BCE, was just shit stirring as usual. He really adds no value to the debate and the press should stop quoting him. Rob, like you I cannot imagine that a company like Ferrari would deliberately cheat with so much risk to damage their public image. But I also don't wanna be naive so I recognize there was something going on. Were they pushing a certain idea too far into the grey zone? As you say they are, like all teams, constantly under close scrutiny so it seems virtually impossible to completely hide something in the car/PU. Maybe the FIA approved a certain idea Ferrari was developing but lost the grip or understanding because of it's complexity? And only after other teams questioned this development the FIA recognized Ferrari was actually crossing a line? A development they first approved of? This could explain the FIA's settlement decision. Just a thought. |
|
|
|
Post by René on Mar 14, 2020 12:03:25 GMT
Ferrari? bend the rules? as if, now I do wish to be a bit cautious in my response as am surrounded by red car fans... Chris, never feel hindered to speak your mind on this forum! |
|
|
|
Post by robmarsh on Mar 14, 2020 17:27:13 GMT
A good thought Rene. Chris I would love to know all Chapman's "tweaks". Always liked the story of the rubber fitting in the Lotus 72D that enabled the rear wing to be flattened by the air pressure on the straight. Very simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Mar 15, 2020 8:24:19 GMT
Rene, in truth it was a bit tongue in cheek, but thank you anyway, the point for me was 'bending the rules' aka Chapman and the paper bulhead painted metal grey which was supposed to be fireproof, and cheating like Toyota and the rally cars in the 90's when all of a suddenly they went a lot quicker for no obvious reason and were subsequently banned for a season, that was humiliating and cheating, I would leave it up to you about Ross's infamous 'how do you measure barge boards' in the 00's whether that was cheating or 'bending the rules'
which is a point, famous accusations:
Chapman was accused by Von Frankenberg in 1964 of using an oversized engine in Formula Junior and therefore cheating - which Pete Arundel at Monza subsequently proved they weren't and a grovelling apology was uttered - along with a £1000 and a rant from Bill Boddy
1965 Le Mans - Jochen and Masten accused of having a 3rd driver-
1970 Belgium GP - did Pedro have an enlarged engine?
1972 - Lotus 72D -Colin being a genius or a cheat? apperently there is a fuller story of this in Ian Wagstaff's Lotus 72 owner's manual and it is really clever and way ahead of movable aerodynamic devices and is it cheating? or just being bloody clever? the fact it was Denis Hulme who noticed it following Emmo and pointed it out and it quietly disapeared from the car seems to indicate perhaps Colin that was a push too far
1978 Brabham fan car
1981 Gordon Murray and hydraulic suspension
1984 - Tyrell water saving cooled brakes
1994 Benetton traction control - this for me was one of the most controversial moments in F1 history,
2005 - Renault mass damper - 2010 McLaren F-duct - BMW Turbo engines 1986 - Brawn's double diffuser 2009- William CVT 1993 McLaren's rear brake 1997 - 2005 BAR and that extra fuel tank
then you had spygate and crashgate
what do you think chaps? there has been a long history of taking things to the edge and cheating, which is which? now I am sure there are many more cases and maybe it is a point to discuss-
|
|
|
|
Post by robmarsh on Mar 16, 2020 20:19:55 GMT
My favourite one is the NASCAR driver/owner who had about three miles of extra fuel pipe in his car to get around the fuel tank restrictions. The scrutineers pulled the tank out to inspect and were taking too long so said driver got in his car and drove it away without the tank.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Mar 16, 2020 21:54:43 GMT
My favourite one is the NASCAR driver/owner who had about three miles of extra fuel pipe in his car to get around the fuel tank restrictions. The scrutineers pulled the tank out to inspect and were taking too long so said driver got in his car and drove it away without the tank. That was Smokey Yunick, a legendary innovator and rules evader who once had a car banned by NASCAR before it could even race.
|
|
|
|
Post by robmarsh on Mar 17, 2020 18:16:33 GMT
Thanks Carl, I thought it was but wasn't 100% sure. Knew that someone on here would though.
|
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Mar 17, 2020 18:21:57 GMT
Wasn't the Smokey Yunick car in question the one with the extra fuel stored in the roll over cage?
Back to F1; I remember that Tyrrell were actually banned for circumventing the weight regs by putting lead shot on the fuel to bring the underweight cars up to the minimum requirement. Don't blame them at all as they were being shafted by the rules that favoured the turbo's at the time. Also i believe that it was around that time that Uncle Ken was speaking out about the poison duo and they were after him.
P.S.
The Toyota Celica WRC cheat was very clever indeed; Chris harris on the recent series of UK Top Gear did a great feature on that very thing. I hate to admit this but i actually find the current TG set up to be quite good. Especially after I thought they would be a complete disaster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Mar 18, 2020 4:14:36 GMT
Wasn't the Smokey Yunick car in question the one with the extra fuel stored in the roll over cage? Back to F1; I remember that Tyrrell were actually banned for circumventing the weight regs by putting lead shot on the fuel to bring the underweight cars up to the minimum requirement. Don't blame them at all as they were being shafted by the rules that favoured the turbo's at the time. Also i believe that it was around that time that Uncle Ken was speaking out about the poison duo and they were after him. P.S. The Toyota Celica WRC cheat was very clever indeed; Chris harris on the recent series of UK Top Gear did a great feature on that very thing. I hate to admit this but i actually find the current TG set up to be quite good. Especially after I thought they would be a complete disaster. The attached article highlights the car in question, a masterpiece of engineering years ahead of other teams, and the extraordinary genius of its creator, who secreted an extra 5 gallons inside the frame rails.
P.S. Had Ken Tyrrell done more than speak, a clever defense attorney could have had it ruled pesticide.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Mar 18, 2020 5:57:04 GMT
I would agree JC, I quite like this new trio at TG, although more Stig would be better
yes, yet again the poison duo's tentacles stretch out, I see Mr M is back in the news, I didn't read his words, I really have better things to do - like pass the time on this site!
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Mar 18, 2020 17:11:51 GMT
Like other creative sorts, Smokey Yunick had a restless mind and it led him to install a sizeable wing on his entry during practice for the 1962 Indy 500. The resulting downforce enabled driver Jim Rathman to be much faster through the turns, but the increased drag on the long straights at Indy meant an overall increase of lap times, so the idea was shelved.
|
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Mar 18, 2020 19:01:27 GMT
Like other creative sorts, Smokey Yunick had a restless mind and it led him to install a sizeable wing on his entry during practice for the 1962 Indy 500. The resulting downforce enabled driver Jim Rathman to be much faster through the turns, but the increased drag on the long straights at Indy meant an overall increase of lap times, so the idea was shelved.
Excellent Carl. Smokey must have taken his inspiration from Michael May. |
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Mar 18, 2020 19:06:40 GMT
Goodness me Chris I really thought that I would have been alone in quite liking this new TG team, measuring that you also find them OK. Fred is a good guy; a big old lad with spherical objects the size of melons. He did a series a while back on a less well known channel and in the making of one episode visited my good friends in the Uk who were then alpaca breeders. My friend Nick was very impressed with Fred who just loved the alpacas and wanted to be filmed with them.
I really did think that trio would be a disaster initially but have completely changed my opinion having seen what they have done.
|
|
