Ferrari asks for clarification of rules - Page 2

golem · 10 Apr 2003, 01:58 (Ref:564705)

a) Well, there has to be 20 cars on the grid... but make them start from the back.
b) So the race could be run safely at speed for the event. Personally though, anyone wishing to change should have to do so after the race has started. Work fast, boys.
c) Why the hell can't the FIA just state an X rim and 3 compound limit. They choose any 3 tyres models from 4 possible models made available to all teams, available from their manufacturer on a given weekend and can have up to X rims worth of any combination of the three. This allows for 2 wet and 2 dry to be brought and the teams are at full responsibility to choose the right ones.

The Nobody Guy · 10 Apr 2003, 02:25 (Ref:564717)

I have question about the 75% rule.. I'm fairly sure that it applies only to the number of laps.

In the case of a very wet (or disrupted) race, maximum time of a race is 2 hours. So in the case of Brazil, if the race was going to run over time anyway, could the 75% rule be used at the 90 minute mark?

As an extreme example, if the race had run to 1hr 55mins, and was red flagged, but was still short of 75% *distance*, surely the race would be declared (you can't clean up and restart in 5 minutes!). Or is this almost impossible to happen anyway?

...maybe I should have made a new thread about a hypothetical situation, but it seems to fit in with this discussion...

RWC · 10 Apr 2003, 02:32 (Ref:564722)

Golem that would require them to bring far more tyres and rims to events than they do now.More than the old rules even!

As for the engine changes-that is just dumb-why allow it???
*because we are the fia and we 'clarify" rules to suit ourselves*

Don K · 10 Apr 2003, 06:41 (Ref:564779)

Quote:

Originally posted by Wrex
(a) Why Raikonnen was allowed to change his engine after qualifying?

I was stunned this was permitted (for Villenueve also). While I dont believe either had a benefit from it (eg: a special qual engine), a rule is a rule. I'm amazed & disappointed this was seen as OK.

I think the situation was not quite the same.

Villeneuve changed his engine, and had to start from the pit lane.
Raikkonen changed his engine, but was alowed to start from the grid because McLaren had given proof that the original engine had a crack.

Verstappen "had to" switch to the T-car, but for some strange reason he was allowed to start with a filled fuel tank.
I thought the rules said that in this situation the T-car had to have the same amount as fuel (i.e. total weight differing at most 3 kg) as the original car. :confused:

Mal · 10 Apr 2003, 06:50 (Ref:564784)

IMO full wets would not have made a huge difference to the race. Intermediates were quicker after 5 or 6 racing laps. You could see that because the Bridgestones which are closer to dry tyres than the Michelins were slower in the first few laps but then became significantly faster. Later in the race when all the problems occured at turn 3 all the teams would have changed to inters by then anyway as they were much faster everywhere except turn 3.

Having said that the rule is stupid because we were lucky that it stopped raining.

Wrex · 10 Apr 2003, 08:20 (Ref:564861)

Quote:

Originally posted by Don K
I think the situation was not quite the same.

Villeneuve changed his engine, and had to start from the pit lane.

Thats fair enough then.

Quote:

Originally posted by Don K
Raikkonen changed his engine, but was alowed to start from the grid because McLaren had given proof that the original engine had a crack.

So what? So now what stops the manufacturers building qualifying engines that go bang if there is no penalty for changing it? This is wrong, very wrong. (I say again, I do not think this is what was done, but a rule is rule, not just when it suites)

Quote:

Originally posted by Don K
Verstappen "had to" switch to the T-car, but for some strange reason he was allowed to start with a filled fuel tank.
I thought the rules said that in this situation the T-car had to have the same amount as fuel (i.e. total weight differing at most 3 kg) as the original car. :confused:

I think this is OK. He swapped but had to pay the penalty of starting in Pit lane.

I do however have issue with any possible advantage without penality.

Hungary 89 · 10 Apr 2003, 09:03 (Ref:564878)

Quote:

Originally posted by Bononi
Certainly is not the same. It took them more than 20 years to win a championship again. I bet Enzo, wherever he is, is quite happy now.

Wouldn't Disagree there But the Ferrari is the class of the field right now that is why he should be happy. From what I hear that is always what made Enzo Happy that fact that he had built a car that was better than anybody elses.

From 97 - 2000 Ferraris position was more down to a certain M Schumacher than the car 2001 - present their position is more due to the car

**Bononi** · 10 Apr 2003, 13:16 (Ref:565077)

What's wrong with that ? Enzo always praised a talented racer - see Gilles example - so if he had the chance to see TGF racing, he would do anything to have him in a Ferrari.

And the 97-2000 ferraris were developed by a team around TGF, the outcome : 2001-2003 cars.

Inigo Montoya · 10 Apr 2003, 13:20 (Ref:565080)

Bon is right. Enzo would have been happy to see Michael, the best driver of his generation, dominating in the best car. And Enzo probably would have had very little patience for the public outcry after Austria last year.

Hungary 89 · 10 Apr 2003, 16:53 (Ref:565272)

I'm getting in a little out of my depth here folks,

Enzo died before my interest in F1 really started

In answer to your comments From what I have read and heard Enzo would have been reluctant to let a driver call the shots the way Micheal (I assume thats who you refer to by TGF) does he would have wanted two top drivers in the team

But we are drifting away from my original point which was I feel Enzo would have been unhappy if he saw his cars off the pace but he would have solved the problem by improving the car and not by trying to prove that his rivals were cheating.

However as I said this was before my time

**Bononi** · 10 Apr 2003, 18:13 (Ref:565357)

Fair enough, Hungary 89.

Just by reading about Enzo's life give us a hint of what he would do in those situations. That's doesn't mean that he actually would do it.

But anyway, from a F1 fan's position - I'm not a Ferrari fan - I believe that Ferrari claims are valid, and should be discussed until comletely clarified. I bet if it was Ferrari that changed the engine and TGF had won the race, this forum would have countless threads about cheating and conspirations. So just trying to be fair, I think this is a relevant matter that can't be postponed.

Inigo Montoya · 10 Apr 2003, 19:06 (Ref:565415)

Quote:

Originally posted by Bononi
I'm not a Ferrari fan -

Careful Bon, or the Italian blood in you will begin to boil!

**Bononi** · 10 Apr 2003, 20:07 (Ref:565478)

la mia anima è rossa come il ferrari

Just quoting my grandpa...

RaceTime · 11 Apr 2003, 02:47 (Ref:565785)

Quote:

Originally posted by Wrex
[i(b) Why everyone was allowed to change their race setup after qualifying?

This was unfortunate for Ferrari, but that life. As someone said, once a race is declared wet, everyone can change the setup. Ferrari should know that.

Or maybe the rule should allow for change of setup's but NOT before the race has started. Otherwise, when a forecast is for a changeable weekend, why even bother with qualifying?

RaceTime · 11 Apr 2003, 02:56 (Ref:565786)

Quote:

Originally posted by The Nobody Guy
I have question about the 75% rule.. I'm fairly sure that it applies only to the number of laps.

In the case of a very wet (or disrupted) race, maximum time of a race is 2 hours. So in the case of Brazil, if the race was going to run over time anyway, could the 75% rule be used at the 90 minute mark?

As an extreme example, if the race had run to 1hr 55mins, and was red flagged, but was still short of 75% *distance*, surely the race would be declared (you can't clean up and restart in 5 minutes!). Or is this almost impossible to happen anyway?

...maybe I should have made a new thread about a hypothetical situation, but it seems to fit in with this discussion...

Regardless of what conditions look like, the race is scheduled for xx laps. If weather conditions, or force majure, cause a restriction to 2 hours, then 75% of the race distance is STILL 75% of xx laps.

Only in races such as Daytona and Le Mans 24 hour races would you look to use 75% of the time.

And, maybe someone else can do the math for me - but there were still - what was it? 16 laps? - remaining in the Brazil GP - based on the best lap times achieved, this would have taken 25 minutes. If (yes a big if) they had cotinued with no further slowing down doe to rain , accidents or other conditions, they COULD have just finished 71 laps.

Hungary 89 · 11 Apr 2003, 06:27 (Ref:565860)

Quote:

Originally posted by Bononi
Fair enough, Hungary 89.

Just by reading about Enzo's life give us a hint of what he would do in those situations. That's doesn't mean that he actually would do it.

But anyway, from a F1 fan's position - I'm not a Ferrari fan - I believe that Ferrari claims are valid, and should be discussed until comletely clarified. I bet if it was Ferrari that changed the engine and TGF had won the race, this forum would have countless threads about cheating and conspirations. So just trying to be fair, I think this is a relevant matter that can't be postponed.

I think underneath it all we are really singing from the same hymn sheet

I have a distaste for politics I respect guys like Gilles. He just got on and drove bloody fast and had to feel that what he did on the track (although sometimes hard)was perfectly fair. I'd like to see a bit more of that back in F1

I see some of these traits in Montoya

**Asp** · 11 Apr 2003, 09:46 (Ref:566030)

Engines:

You've got to be careful if you're going to penalise for changing engines. The team would say in reply:
"The one engine rule starts next year"

I think the stewards/FIA tech boffins would look carefully at the engine, establish why it needs chaning, if it's fair, and if any penalty needs imposing.

f1grandprixshop · 12 Apr 2003, 06:45 (Ref:567008)

Quote:

Originally posted by Hungary 89
I've never liked Ferrari's "rules clarifications" since they got Mclarens extra break pedal ruled illegal never understood that it was driver controlled!

Ferrari's rules clarification?? only and only Ferrari complained??

i doubt.

Don K · 12 Apr 2003, 11:30 (Ref:567165)

Quote:

Originally posted by f1grandprixshop
Ferrari's rules clarification?? only and only Ferrari complained?? i doubt.

As far as I know, when you ask for a rules clarification:
- You accept the decision.
- You claim that you did not know beforehand that this is the way the rules were meant.
- You ask for a explanation on how the rules will be applied in the future.

So basically, asking fo a rules clarification is something you do if you do not want to complain.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A novice asks........	TuscanR	Motorsport Art & Photography	23	2 Apr 2004 21:41
Ferrari Rules	avsfan733	Formula One	69	18 Dec 2003 14:25
Two asks	Dynojet	Sportscar & GT Racing	1	8 Jan 2003 14:50
The FIA rules / ..find the rule Ferrari broke [merged]	zealot	Formula One	78	15 May 2002 16:45
A tech novice asks...	Sparky	Racing Technology	1	3 Nov 2000 02:09