FIA: "Sauber C23 is not Ferrari copy"(merge)

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Gt_R
but i don't think that warrants cries of cheats by anti-Ferrari camp who seems to just grab any chance they can to criticise.

If, and i'm not saying they have, Ferrari and Sauber have got together and Ferrari have "given" Sauber the plans to the 2003, this surely goes against the rules, i.e, each constructor must design their own chassis, thats what people (understandably imo) are getting confused about.

It seems that Ferrari, as they have lost the BAR as Bridgestone testing partner have possibly decided that they best way they can advance is by setting up a "satalite" team (in effect).

As for Michelin teams sharing tyre data, this is no different to what Bridgestone do, the only difference being that Michelin have better teams to do it with.

[Damon]

Yes GT_R, but it's against the spirit of the rules. I always dislike the "if we are getting away with it then we can't be doing anything wrong" attitude. The only reason everyone has decamped off to Michilin is because Bridgestone has concentrated it's development soley around Ferrari for the last few years and now they are paying the price. It's not my dislike of Ferrari that is clouding my judgement, it's situtations like these that cause my dislike of Ferrari.

[Damon]

The general idea is sound in theory. It would allow the lower team to be more competive at a greatly reduced cost and ultimately improve the racing. If it was all open and everyone could do it that would be fine. This is not what has happened with the current Ferrari/Sauber case. Both team have categorically denied that it is the same car despite the fact that it clearly is aside from the odd detail. Ferrari have essentially created a satelite team giving them an unfair advantage over their rivals.

[Gt_R]

Were you upset when Michelins ran tyres which is "against the spirit of the rules"? Provoking statement perhaps, but team-bias does affect how "badly" we are affected by such incidents (i admit i'm guilty of it too).

I think it is important to note that "source within the FIA said that it had been consulted during the entire design process of the C23, and that the paperwork, designs and manufacturing were all fully legal". Hence claiming/insisting that Ferrari flout any rules is unwarranted.

I do understand and share the concerns over a junior team that serves no purpose but to aid another team win. But Sauber is more than that. They won't make such huge investments otherwise, nor Sauber despite failing repeatedly, looks for ways to hook his team with a manufacturer.

Toyota ran very similar cars to Ferrari too..and i recall people defending Toyota then. Sauber and Ferrari are seeking to achieve a "win-win" relationship, where both stand to benefit from the collaboration between them.

[Peter Mallett]

In 1978 BS Fabrications ran Bruno Giacommelli in a McLaren M23. Nothing wrong with that.

Arrows was also formed but they "stole" the design from Shadow. Definitely something wrong with that.

The argument that teams can't use another team's chassis is (to me) facile. However not being able to admit it is even worse!

[Gt_R]

Quote "For my part, I enjoy examining the different cars each team makes, analyzing the different solutions the teams come up with to the same problem: how to go fastest given the FIA's rules."

Indeed. I agree and that is the reason why i am disappointed with the Sauber's resemblance to Ferrari.

Also, i agree that it makes sense for a small team to buy off a big team's parts if it does help boost their performance with minimal money.

Quote:"Both team have categorically denied that it is the same car despite the fact that it clearly is aside from the odd detail. Ferrari have essentially created a satelite team giving them an unfair advantage over their rivals"

This is where i disagree. Toyota ran a car last year "very similar" to the F2002/F2003GA, despite odd details, yet there wasn't any complaints from the "anti-Ferrari" camp simply because there is no room for doubt of Ferrari benefitting from the incident.

However, it is not Ferrari "gaining an unfair advantage", but rather it is the ASSUMED unfair advantage that MAY BE gained by Ferrari that is setting the feathers of rival teams/fans on fire.

Quote: "If it was all open and everyone could do it that would be fine."

Precisely, but EVERYTHING is open, EVERYONE could do it....but still you seem to have a problem. Why?


Remember, if rival teams (w/o doubt Mclaren/Williams) believe that Ferrari had an unfair advantage with their relationship with Sauber, nothing is stopping them from giving Jordan/Minardi a hand in developement... which Ron desperately refuses. And Sauber submitted ALL designs proposals/process etc to FIA for consultations and they are approved individually as legal.

[Damon]

Everything isn't that open though. The rules state that every constructor must design and build their own car. This hasn't happened in this case. The Toyota of last year was similar, yes, but not to the point of the the C23/F2003 similarities we've seen here.

If it was possible for say Jordan and Minardi to buy a 2003 Williams/McLaren/Ferrari chassis then I'd have no problem with that - everyone would be in the same boat. As it is they're not.

[Gt_R]

Let's put it this way, i am amused but not impressed with the eagerness the rival fans are to condemn Ferrari to another one of those cheating/unfair allegations.

Stop talking about worries that Sauber copying Ferrari is an illegal act... It is the worries that Ferrari may be advantaged that is getting the rival fans unsettled here. Remember, even if any rule is broken, it is Sauber for taking the other team's design, NOT Ferrari. People are just afraid that Ferrari get an upperhand and paranoid that Sauber may help Ferrari to the WDC. (Remembering how loud the cries of cheat came after Monza 03 after JPM fails to lap HHF's Sauber)

[Gt_R]

Wait a minute... DID anybody stop Mclaren-Mercedes from supply engines to Minardi? Ron REFUSED....remember? Nobody actually is stopping Williams from taking Jordan under their assistance and start a relationship similar to Sauber-Ferrari. ZERO obstructions but for the unwillingness of Ron to see his engines going to another team. IT is OPEN but for people to NOT accept it.

The only difference between Toyota and Sauber is that while Sauber openly recieve help from Ferrari, Toyota got it (intentionally or not) by means of an ex-Ferrari worker taking the designs with him over to Toyota.

I agree Damon, i don't like what i see in such similarities... but surely to say Ferrari flout the rules/unfair advantage is really far from certainty.

[DriverT]

Quote from Max Mosley on how Sauber isn't a Ferrari:

http://www.autosport.com/newsitem.asp?id=25820&s=5

[Sodemo]

I was running a few conspiracy theories through my head, and thought is this why Ferrari have had Massa testing the F2003 all year, so when he runs the C23 (aka the same car he has been testing all year) he knows it well??

Food for thought...

[Glen]

For a start, do the rules say that you must design your own car? Build - yes, but design?

Secondly, Damon gives is game away in the most blatant way - he openly says it is fair game to make sensible arrangements if you're a lesser team - as long as Ferrari aren't involved. Collusion on the track remains illegal, and Sauber will be watched very closely - if they move over for red cars thay will get penalised (don't forget to take off the anti-Ferrari glasses when you watch those incidents).

Other teams could just as easily do something similar - Damon is wrong I believe when he says that the playing field is not level. So - if it is ok to have a helping hand with design and thereby have a more competetive car for a lesser team, what's the problem? Is it ok only if they still don't score points?

I can't see a Max quote in that Autosport story, btw.

[DriverT]

So it's apparently "very similar". Hmmmm....

[Gt_R]

?

What is Ferrari supposed to do, let Massa test with the car Michael first raced in 96?

Everything that happens in F1, as long as it involves Ferrari/Todt/Brawn/Bryne/Michael, there MUST be some dark and ugly motives, is that what the critics want to tell me? There really isn't much need to beat around the bush and say how sharing designs is not in the name of the game...

[ASCII Man]

If you only knew the power of the dark side...

[Damon]

The fact remains that without a strong second team Ferrari and Bridgestone would struggle with development this year. The rules dictate that each team is to have no more than 2 cars, aside from the colour Ferrari will essentially have 4 in each race - hell, they're even sharing drivers!

There's nothing wrong with supplying engines to other teams but the cross team relationship has been taken too far in this instance imo.

[ralf fan]

the front nose and wing seem a slight drifferent, otherwise...

[macca]

I suspect Ferrari has let Sauber use its 2003 moulds (with mods for the airbox fin), although the wings seen on the Sauber at its launch appear to be indicative prototypes only.

This would save Sauber a lot of money and time, in not having to make bucks and moulds - but as long as Ferrari didn't give details of their finite stress analysis and CFC layups away, it is effectively a different car.........but are the suspension components identical?

[ralf fan]

yeah really its like having 2 Ferrari teams on the circuit which is basically not allowed...

[Sodemo]

Check out these 2 pics

http://f1.racing-live.com/photos/200.../diapo_194.jpg

http://f1.racing-live.com/photos/200.../diapo_195.jpg

[Damon]

Mr V set up a topic a while ago and I'll reiterate his comments - I take offence to the use of my dislike for a team to invalidate my opinions.

[Sodemo]

Hey its only a theory (its fun!), calm down peeps, jeez.

[Glen]

Originally posted by Damon
Mr V set up a topic a while ago and I'll reiterate his comments - I take offence to the use of my dislike for a team to invalidate my opinions.

That would be totally fair, Damon, if you hadn't actually said it yourself! You say that the idea is ok, but that you don't like this example of it. You also say that other teams don't have the same opportunity - which is plainly wrong. As ar as I can see your "valid" opinion is not fully rounded out, and appears very much to be skewed by your dislike of the red team.

I'm not getting on at the poster, but the post.

[Gt_R]

Your respected opinions are NOT invalidated, but questioned/challenged, Damon, that i assure you.

If what you say is that Sauber C23 is very very similar to Ferrari F2003 GA, that opinion is shared by me... In fact i can't see much difference past the paint.

But to quote you:
==
"It's a dodgy area. As this weeks Autosport has said, the difficulty for the others is to prove that it's an exact copy. It only needs a few bits to be slightly different for the car to fall within the the letter of the law.

**However, this is yet another example of Ferrari pushing the the fair interpretation of the rules for their own gain.** They've clearly helped Sauber in some way with this new car and in doing that they have a subservient team that won't beat them but are close enough to help them do development work with Bridgestone. In essence Ferrari will have 5 cars running in friday free practice and that is certianly against the spirt of the rules."
==

It is this part where you are jumping to the conclusion that this whole exercise is masterminded by Ferrari to "flout the rule" (better known to layman as "cheat"), something which i can't say is an opinion based on facts, but rather assumptions plus a healthy dose of dislike.

Similarly, i take offense for people who jump straight in with opinions that Ferrari cheat. There's nothing wrong if we suspect that something fishy is going on, an expression of thinking...however, your quote is a statement, not a suggestion, which says Ferrari did something wrong. Again, something based on little facts but more of emotions/assumptions.

[Gt_R]

Let's just put it this way, irregardless of whether you posted this sequence of posts or a god-knows-who rookie/veteran, i would have used exactly the same counter-arguments.

I do accept differing opinions, but firstly i need to be convinced that the opinions are valid and not just pot-shots (not neccessary conforming to what i think) It's reasonable dont you agree?

So it's really not something i hold against you.