Ferrari Cheating Again!

[Gomerbilly]

Ferrari FRONT Wings Under Investigation!
Written by: Adam CooperSepang, Malaysia – 3/18/2006

Is Ferrari utilizing movable front wings in Malaysia? (LAT Photo)

Ferrari's front wing is under investigation by the FIA, after TV pictures suggested that it contravenes the rules outlawaing movable aerodynamic devices, Speedtv.com can reveal.

On-board pictures seen on the German Premiere satellite channel - but not on the worldwide feed - apparently showed the upper elements folding out of the way after retaining pins came out of their holes under load.

Several teams were alerted to the story by people watching in Europe, and have made their feelings known to the FIA. The cars are due to be checked this morning. Rivals of the Scuderia had already complained about the possibility of flexible rear wings after the Bahrain race, where the Ferraris had the highest straightline speeds.



Follow up article:
http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/22633/

I'm sure the FIA will rubber stamp whatever BS excuse Ferrari comes up with. What a joke!

[Fio1]

On-board pictures seen on the German Premiere satellite channel - but not on the worldwide feed - apparently showed the upper elements folding out of the way after retaining pins came out of their holes under load.



So, when the car is under braking, do the upper elements move back into their position and the retaining clips hold them in place again? How are they not movable when the car is stationary?

[TrueBrit]

The only way that could be considered cheating is if the retaining pins are designed to accidentally fall out...

[Gomerbilly]

It was plainly visible in the on-car footage. The wing pulls away from the nose cone under loading (high speed), creating a gap. The retaining pins facilitate this movement. It's pretty obvious it was designed to do this. I'd call it illegal. It's an aerodynamic part designed to move - against the rules I'm afraid, at least on the surface. Like I said, it's Ferrari so it will proabably be declared legal. :shakehead

[Gomerbilly]

So, when the car is under braking, do the upper elements move back into their position and the retaining clips hold them in place again? How are they not movable when the car is stationary?


Yes, essentially. They would be movable if you stood on the end of the wing. Apparently, it's designed to flex under loading, causing the gapping.

[pchall]

With Ferrari's budget, wouldn't we all be disappointed if they didn't find all the loopholes in the rules and exploit them?

[Dr. Corkski]

gomerbilly whining again. :gomer:

[Cam]

gomerbilly whining again. :gomer:

Cork being an *** again! :shakehead


Ferrari agree to drop 'flexy' wing
Sunday March 19 2006

Ferrari have agreed to scrap their 'flexy' rear wing ahead of the Australian Grand Prix following a quiet word from the FIA.

Linky (http://www.planetf1.com/News/Story_Page/0,15909,3210_3213_1096600,00.html)

[Dr. Corkski]

http://home.maine.rr.com/mattyg/wambulance.jpg

:cry:

[oddlycalm]

Regardless if it helped performance it's over now and it wasn't enough to put Ferrari at the front. Considering where they started both ran well, particularly Massa, but not a threat to those on the podium or even Williams had they finished the race running.

Nice for the #2 drivers at Renault and Ferrari best their team mates.

oc

[Ankf00]

http://home.maine.rr.com/mattyg/wambulance.jpg

:cry:


right, cork sez yankees cheat, ferrari just uses money more wisely :laugh:

[Gomerbilly]

gomerbilly whining again. :gomer:


Do you work in Ferrari PR (Lying department)? :rolleyes:

More like nine other F-1 teams calling Ferarri out for cheating. Facts are stubborn things. Even the FIA couldn't cover this one up. Ferrari's results should be excluded. Why should they receive points when they used illegal parts?

[Gomerbilly]

With Ferrari's budget, wouldn't we all be disappointed if they didn't find all the loopholes in the rules and exploit them?


That's not a loophole. The rules are clear on movable aero devices. I guess Ferrari decided to cheat and hoped the FIA would cover for them again. I wonder how many illegal parts were on their cars over the years when they were 'winning'? :shakehead

[NismoZ]

$25,000 fine, chief engineer suspended for 3 races. THAT'll teach 'em! :)

[Cam]

$25,000 fine, chief engineer suspended for 3 races. THAT'll teach 'em! :)
What pizzez meoff....


Had it been Williams or McLaren it would have been points!

Scuderria get caught...... Smack on the hand......... Dont get "caught" doing it again....... :rolleyes:

[Gomerbilly]

What pizzez meoff....


Had it been Williams or McLaren it would have been points!

Scuderria get caught...... Smack on the hand......... Dont get "caught" doing it again....... :rolleyes:


I agree. They should have their points yanked. Total BS. They cheat but there are no real consequences.

[formulaben]

Unless the "pin" allows the angle of attack of the wing to change, I see no way (and nobody here has yet to explain) how this would aid the Ferarri. The spirit of the movable aerodynamic device rule is to ban rotating or flexible wings, but parallel with the airflow; this clearly is not. ALL front and rear wings on ALL the cars flex; it's just to what degree.

[rjohnson999]

Spirit of the rules? BS. Total BS. The rules must be enforced as written. No more and no less. They don't exclude lateral movement in their prohibition.


Unless the "pin" allows the angle of attack of the wing to change, I see no way (and nobody here has yet to explain) how this would aid the Ferarri. The spirit of the movable aerodynamic device rule is to ban rotating or flexible wings, but parallel with the airflow; this clearly is not. ALL front and rear wings on ALL the cars flex; it's just to what degree.

[Gomerbilly]

Unless the "pin" allows the angle of attack of the wing to change, I see no way (and nobody here has yet to explain) how this would aid the Ferarri. The spirit of the movable aerodynamic device rule is to ban rotating or flexible wings, but parallel with the airflow; this clearly is not. ALL front and rear wings on ALL the cars flex; it's just to what degree.


There are 10,000 articles floating around explaining what advantage their solution provides. It's clearly designed to alter performance through movement. It's illegal.

[Dirty Sanchez]

:gomer:

stop talking out of your bunghole. the fact is that the race results from malaysia are 100% official and without protest :gomer:

8 teams threatened to protest but never did. they are now seeking FIA clarification... which will happen before oz. it is interesting to note that this is not only about Ferrari as at least 2 other teams have been identified as possibly having suspect aero devices. according to Nick Fry, this includes teams that originally wanted to protest Ferrari.

this thread is lame :thumdown:

[Dirty Sanchez]

:gomer:

stop talking out of your bunghole. the fact is that the race results from malaysia are 100% official and without protest :gomer:

8 teams threatened to protest but never did. they are now seeking FIA clarification... which will happen before oz. it is interesting to note that this is not only about Ferrari as at least 2 other teams have been identified as possibly having suspect aero devices. according to Nick Fry, this includes teams that originally wanted to protest Ferrari.

this thread is lame :thumdown:

[formulaben]

Spirit of the rules? BS. Total BS. The rules must be enforced as written. No more and no less. They don't exclude lateral movement in their prohibition.

Actually that's not true. As I said, it's the degree of movement. The FIA have a rule that puts weight on the wings and a certain amount of tolerance is allowed. If it was such a blatant violation, then why didn't any of the teams that finished behind Ferrari protest?




3.17 Bodywork flexibility :

3.17.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when a 500N load is applied vertically to it 700mm forward of the front wheel centre line and 625mm from the car centre line. The load will be applied in a downward direction using a 50mm diameter ram and an adapter 300mm long and 150mm wide. Teams must supply the latter when such a test is deemed necessary.

3.17.2 Bodywork may deflect no more than 10mm vertically when a 500N load is applied vertically to it 450mm forward of the rear wheel centre line and 650mm from the car centre line. The load will be applied in a downward direction using a 50mm diameter ram and an adapter of the same size, Teams must supply the latter when such a test is deemed necessary.

3.17.3 Bodywork may deflect by no more than one degree horizontally when a load of 1000N is applied simultaneously to its extremities in a rearward direction 780mm above the reference plane and 20mm forward of the rear wheel centre line.

3.17.4 Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when a 500N load is applied vertically to it at a point which lies on the car centre line and 380mm rearward of the front wheel centre line. The load will be applied in an upward direction using a 50mm diameter ram, teams will be required to supply a suitable adapter when such a test is deemed necessary.

3.17.5 The uppermost aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line may deflect no more than 5mm horizontally when a 500N load is applied horizontally. The load will be applied 800mm above the reference plane at three separate points which lie on the car centre line and 250mm either side of it. The loads will be applied in an rearward direction using a suitable 25mm wide adapter which must be supplied by the relevant team.

3.17.6 The forward-most aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line and which lies more than 600mm above the reference plane may deflect no more than 2mm vertically when a 200N load is applied vertically. The load will be applied in line with the trailing edge of the element at any point across its width. The loads will be applied using a suitable adapter, supplied by the relevant team, which :
- may be no more than 50mm wide ;
- which extends no more than 10mm forward of the trailing edge ;
- incorporates an 8mm female thread in the underside.

3.17.7 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.

[oddlycalm]

Had it been Williams or McLaren it would have been points! And there's the real issue, not whether what is being done to Ferarri is fair standing on it's own but whether it's consistant with recent past actions by the FIA. BAR/Honda got a two race suspension for a fuel tank that was creatively non-compliant. They also got very publically called on the carpet at FIA headquarters.

A good case could be made that the Ferarri wing infraction was at least as severe as any minor advantage gained from the fuel tank issue.

oc

[Andrew Longman]

Of course the real criminal at Ferrari is the mechanic that did not move the on board camera such that viewers around the globe could not see the suspect wing move on TV.

The management cannot be please with him. :gomer:

[Winston Wolfe]

Of course the real criminal at Ferrari is the mechanic that did not move the on board camera such that viewers around the globe could not see the suspect wing move on TV.

The management cannot be please with him. :gomer:

you mean "ex" Ferrari mechanic... :rofl:

[Lizzerd]

Has anybody here seen that video?

[racer2c]

No, but I'd love to.

[Andrew Longman]

Has anybody here seen that video?

Varsha was talking about it during the KL raceday coverage.

The view from behind the front left wing showed that the rightedge of the wing, where it meets the nose, was separating slightly from the nose. My guess is it was less than 1/4", but you could clearly see daylight in the gap as it opened.

What advantage does it give? Hard to say but it seems to be flattening the wing relative to the nose, not relative to the angle of attack of the airstream.

Combined with the fact that Ferrari did not try to hide it from the cameras, I think this was likely to be a mistake that did not give them an advantage and that the FIA will insist on being fixed for Oz.

[Gomerbilly]

:gomer:

stop talking out of your bunghole. the fact is that the race results from malaysia are 100% official and without protest :gomer:

8 teams threatened to protest but never did. they are now seeking FIA clarification... which will happen before oz. it is interesting to note that this is not only about Ferrari as at least 2 other teams have been identified as possibly having suspect aero devices. according to Nick Fry, this includes teams that originally wanted to protest Ferrari.

this thread is lame :thumdown:


Double posts are what's lame. :gomer:

WGAF what Nick Fry says? Who are these other mystery teams? The only real FACTS are that Ferrari is using illegal parts. BAR got nailed for their fuel tank. Why are we waiting for "clarification' on this? Becaue Ferrari is involved?

I suspect politics/unification stuff is preventing any protests. I don't think F-1 wants a pisser right now.

[Dr. Corkski]

8 teams threatened to protest but never did. they are now seeking FIA clarification... which will happen before oz. it is interesting to note that this is not only about Ferrari as at least 2 other teams have been identified as possibly having suspect aero devices. according to Nick Fry, this includes teams that originally wanted to protest Ferrari.Don't you know by now that it's OK for teams to cheat and use team orders as long as they don't paint their cars red? :gomer:

[Gomerbilly]

Don't you know by now that it's OK for teams to cheat and use team orders as long as they don't paint their cars red? :gomer:


Dude, don't you know that criticizing Ferrari is "lame"? :rolleyes:

[Dirty Sanchez]

Double posts are what's lame. :gomer:

WGAF what Nick Fry says? Who are these other mystery teams? The only real FACTS are that Ferrari is using illegal parts. BAR got nailed for their fuel tank. Why are we waiting for "clarification' on this? Becaue Ferrari is involved?

I suspect politics/unification stuff is preventing any protests. I don't think F-1 wants a pisser right now.you're a tard... here ya go :gomer:


FIA tells McLaren and BMW to change wings

By Adam Cooper Tuesday, March 21st 2006, 08:53 GMT


McLaren-Mercedes and BMW-Sauber are the two other teams required to make modifications to their rear wings in time for the Australian Grand Prix, autosport.com can exclusively reveal.

In Malaysia, the FIA told Ferrari that they must bring modified front and rear wings to Melbourne, or face the consequences.

A planned post-race protest from eight other teams (including McLaren and BMW) about the Ferrari front wing was put on hold, after race director Charlie Whiting brokered a deal that allowed the Italians to run unmolested in the Malaysian GP - on condition that new or modified parts were taken to Australia.

There were rumours that two other teams were also told to make changes, but their identity did not emerge immediately.

Autosport.com understands that the changes required on the BMW wing are relatively minor compared to those on the Ferrari and McLaren.

Furthermore, the FIA will issue no form of clarification or rule update before the next race - the teams concerned have simply been told that their wings don't comply with the rules, and that they have to make changes.






JPM cheats!!!!!!!!! :laugh: :rofl:

[Dr. Corkski]

JPM cheats!!!!!!!!! :laugh: :rofl:That makes the baby jesus cry.

[Gomerbilly]

you're a tard... here ya go :gomer:


FIA tells McLaren and BMW to change wings

By Adam Cooper Tuesday, March 21st 2006, 08:53 GMT


McLaren-Mercedes and BMW-Sauber are the two other teams required to make modifications to their rear wings in time for the Australian Grand Prix, autosport.com can exclusively reveal.

In Malaysia, the FIA told Ferrari that they must bring modified front and rear wings to Melbourne, or face the consequences.

A planned post-race protest from eight other teams (including McLaren and BMW) about the Ferrari front wing was put on hold, after race director Charlie Whiting brokered a deal that allowed the Italians to run unmolested in the Malaysian GP - on condition that new or modified parts were taken to Australia.

There were rumours that two other teams were also told to make changes, but their identity did not emerge immediately.

Autosport.com understands that the changes required on the BMW wing are relatively minor compared to those on the Ferrari and McLaren.

Furthermore, the FIA will issue no form of clarification or rule update before the next race - the teams concerned have simply been told that their wings don't comply with the rules, and that they have to make changes.






JPM cheats!!!!!!!!! :laugh: :rofl:


Apparently, McLaren cheats along with Ferrari. But Ferrari cheats twice as much because their front and rear wings are illegal. :gomer:

That's why I root for Renault. Hopefully JPM goes there next year.

[cameraman]

That's why I root for Renault. Hopefully JPM goes there next year.

If you root for them why do you want them to lose next year :confused:

[Dirty Sanchez]

Apparently, McLaren cheats along with Ferrari. But Ferrari cheats twice as much because their front and rear wings are illegal. :gomer:if you want to be black and white about it... Ferrari did not cheat at all. the thread title is bogus. they passed FIA scrutineering and the FIA deflection tests in Bahrain and Malaysia. so did McLaren and so did BMW. as suspicions grow and whingers whinge the FIA may consider introducing a different testing method to measure deflection prior to Melbourne. this is not unusual as regulations evolve and the boundaries of a new area of development are pushed. a change like this typically occurs between races to allow teams time to prepare for the change.

similar example: Michelin tire issue that arose in Hungary 2003. there was a debate about the legality of the tires and how they measured them before the race rather than after the race.





p.s. you're still a tard :gomer:

[Dr. Corkski]

If you root for them why do you want them to lose next year :confused: :laugh:

Kovalainen could use a #2 driver next year.

[Gomerbilly]

if you want to be black and white about it... Ferrari did not cheat at all. the thread title is bogus. they passed FIA scrutineering and the FIA deflection tests in Bahrain and Malaysia. so did McLaren and so did BMW. as suspicions grow and whingers whinge the FIA may consider introducing a different testing method to measure deflection prior to Melbourne. this is not unusual as regulations evolve and the boundaries of a new area of development are pushed. a change like this typically occurs between races to allow teams time to prepare for the change.

similar example: Michelin tire issue that arose in Hungary 2003. there was a debate about the legality of the tires and how they measured them before the race rather than after the race.





p.s. you're still a tard :gomer:


The Michelin thing was another example of Ferrari getting the FIA of doing their bidding. They used those tires for something like 2 seasons before Ferrari protested and that was because they were getting their asses kicked and had no hope of catching up.

To be honest, the title of this thread is a bit of a red herring. I'm well aware of the scrutineering process and how the FIA handles inquiries and protests. However, this was a stretch even for Ferrari. I just can't see how they didn't think this would cause heat. Shame on McLaren and BMW too. Teams stepping over the line as they did in this case only enboldens numbnuts like Mosley to step in and mandate stupid regulations that ruin the sport. If the teams could see the forest for the trees, maybe the sport wouldn't be headed over the cliff that it currently is.

[Gomerbilly]

Very long but a good overview and insight of the situation.


Wings and a Prayer

The 2006 season began with question marks raised over the rear of the Ferrari car. In Malaysia, the accusations moved to the front. Adam Cooper has been following closely the flexi-wing affair, and he brings a first-hand account, with new details and plenty of insight

By Adam Cooper
autosport.com contributing writer


Let me take you back to the 1993 Le Mans 24 Hours, and an earlier chapter in Jean Todt's long career. A classic confrontation between the works Peugeot and Toyota teams is in prospect, and Philippe Alliot has claimed first blood for the French manufacturer by putting his 905B on pole. However, after setting his quick lap time he's had a huge crash in the Porsche Curves, slamming the sleek white machine into a concrete wall.

Back in the paddock, the disappointed mechanics load the crumpled remains into a truck and transport them back to the Paris factory for overnight 'repairs.' It's their only option, since substitution of a T-car means starting from the back of the grid, and the enormous PR value of pole will be lost.

The following day the truck returns, and a pristine car is rolled out. The chassis number matches, and the race organisers are happy that all is well. Alliot's pole is safe. But having seen the original wreck up close, and suspecting foul play, I check with a reliable source inside the team. My 'Deep Throat' confirms with a grin that the team has indeed broken the rules by swapping monocoques. And appears to have got away with it.

Armed with this information I set out to challenge M Todt, at that time the all-powerful competitions boss of Peugeot. Is what his boys have done legal, I venture with a smile? He's a little surprised at first, but soon composes himself.

'If it is considered to be repaired, we 'ave no problem,' he insists. I pursue the matter further, and his blue/grey eyes fix with me a steely glare. 'Are you a policeman?' he asks. 'If you are a policeman, you should be wearing an 'at!'

On Sunday night in Malaysia I was once again wearing my policeman's 'at, and once again, I put Jean Todt to the test...

But let's start at the beginning. The issue of Ferrari's allegedly flexing rear wing had been gathering momentum even before Bahrain, where members of rival teams expressed their doubts. In the race itself Felipe Massa was fastest through the two quickest speed traps.

In essence, what Ferrari's rivals said happens is that the main element of the rear wing is attached very solidly to the rear crash structure. The rest - the endplates, upper element and so on - has its own fixing. Under high loading at speed this box-like arrangement pivots back, allowing the upper element to close the gap to the lower element. And hey presto, you gain speed on the straight.

The problem for the critics was that, contrary to other evidence, the Ferrari passed the deflection tests applied by the FIA in scrutineering checks.

"I think there are a number of teams wondering where the limits lie," said Renault's Pat Symonds after the race. "There's a single measurement that's made on the wing, but wings have a distributed load, not a single point load. Therefore, the measurement doesn't show everything that can happen with a wing. One place, one direction, can be different to a true aerodynamic load on a wing. It needs a bit of analysis, doesn't it? You ought to be looking at the speed maybe of the Red Bull and the Ferrari, as they've got the same engine..."

He also hit the nail on the head: "You just need to know where you are. It's not a criticism of the FIA. You can't write rules that cover everything. The more precisely you write a rule, the easier it is to get around it. Having them a little bit vague sometimes is not a bad thing."

That summed things up. The FIA has a precise testing method, and the Ferrari had passed it - and such a test is black and white, pregnant or not. But in this case it seemed that there needed to be some grey, some room to be a little bit pregnant.

By Malaysia even Ferrari's closest ally in the paddock wanted answers to the conundrum Symonds posed, and on Friday afternoon Red Bull ran third driver Robert Doornbos with minimal wing compared to the other RB2s, in order to gather some data.

That afternoon Ross Brawn hosted his usual Friday press briefing, and inevitably the wing story came up. He made some interesting remarks about his (and most other people's) approach to the rule book, initially in response to a question about the accuracy of the testing method employed by the FIA.

"It's accurate enough," he insisted. "It's a device, they put a load on it, and they measure the deflection. It's an accurate enough process, and we all have a set of rules that we comply to. Within the spirit of the regulations it's up to the F1 teams to take the maximum advantage as they can from the regulations.

"It's been like that ever since I've been involved in F1, and any team that wants to be competitive has to take that approach. And that's everything. You run within a one kilo of the weight limit. You don't run 10kgs within the weight limit because you want to be safe, you run one kilo within the weight limit.

"The FIA defines how stiff they want the wing to be, and you make it that stiff, or slightly stiffer. And they're entitled to change the regulations any time they want, which may be the case.

"Maybe they decide that the wings are evolving in a way they don't like, and they'll change the regulations again. But that's their prerogative. That's how it's laid out in the regulations, and we may well see some new tests evolve in the next few races. But I think what we have now is accurate."

He confirmed that if the FIA chose to use a different method of testing the rear wing deflection, it could be introduced without warning.

"In theory, they can change that today. The trouble is that if they enforce structural changes to something as critical as a rear wing, it's not a sensible thing to do. If people have to modify the rear wings because they impose a test, and they try to impose that during a race weekend, you've got a situation where a critical component - and a very highly stressed component - could be compromised.

"So I don't think it's very sensible. History shows that they've always done it between races, and given people a couple of weeks to react. I think that's the most likely scenario if they choose to change."

At the time it appeared that he was preparing the ground for a move of goalposts before Australia, and it may well be that there had already been some discussions with the FIA along those lines.


Then everything turned upside down on Saturday afternoon. The German Premiere TV channel captured on-board shots from a nosecam on the Ferrari, and the commentators could hardly miss the unusual lateral movement of the upper front wing element, which created a gap between itself and the nose. The wide-angle lens may have created some distortion, and one well-informed estimate put it at just 2mm - not much, but a great deal in the rarified world of aerodynamics.

The attention of some teams was drawn to the pictures, and their technical guys told their bosses that there was no way this was right - it was clearly constructed as a movable aerodynamic device, and was not just a question of a piece of material flexing.

What did it do? Some felt that, like the upper rear wing element folding down, it allowed the upper front elements to dip out of the airflow and reduce drag.

One leading technical director, and a man with his feet firmly grounded in reality, had a more complex explanation.

He suggested that the opening gap allowed through a flow of air that helped to balance the car. The rear wing stayed in its down position for high-speed corners, the gap helped to adjust front downforce to match.


Then, for slower corners, the rear wing came up and the closed gap balanced out the front downforce. It certainly sounded like an interesting idea.

Whatever the truth, the reaction was quick. Honda and Renault were particularly incensed, and joined by McLaren, put a plan into action.

At one stage the rumour went round that there would be an FIA 'raid' on the Ferrari garage on Sunday morning - one poor photographer waited in vain for some excitement to happen - but it never did.

The real action took place in a meeting of team principals on Sunday morning, where a consensus was reached. The now infamous letter was composed - with Honda's Nick Fry taking charge - and then signed by eight team principals. Red Bull's Christian Horner and Toro Rosso's Franz Tost opted out for obvious political reasons.

This letter was presented, apparently by a Honda team member, to Charlie Whiting, who in turn passed it to the stewards. In essence it announced the teams' intention to protest.

It was an unprecedented document, without any formal value within the confines of the FIA procedures. For that reason it probably did not particularly impress Whiting - in some ways the hastily readied message was reminiscent of the teams' request for a chicane in Indianapolis last year - but he must have respected its sentiments, as the FIA has harboured doubts about the Ferrari's compliance.

During the morning there were many conversations up and down the paddock involving various combinations of team personnel and Whiting. Bernie Ecclestone was also keeping a close eye on things. I don't know how involved he became, but he was well aware of what was going on: "The teams just want a level-playing field," he told me.

The key event was when Geoff Willis, Pat Symonds and Martin Whitmarsh met Brawn to outline their objections to Ferrari's wing arrangement, and by all accounts, it was a fairly interesting discussion. Brawn refused to concede that the car broke the rules, and maintained that it had passed all the FIA tests - which it had.

As tensions developed, he went for the attack-is-the-best-form-of-defence strategy, producing a dossier outlining alleged infringements on other cars. The fact that he was apparently so well prepared for such a confrontation came as a surprise to the others.

But perhaps the key event of the day was when Jean Todt received a copy of the protest letter - handed to him, we understand, by Flavio Briatore.

Todt didn't need this sort of distraction on the morning of what had already been a very taxing weekend for the team. Anything involving rivals apparently ganging up on Ferrari was bound to agitate him even more, but he now knew how serious the situation had become.

Ferrari give in

Ross Brawn and Nigel Stepney had a turbulent weekend at Malaysia © LAT
The story took a new turn around lunchtime. After the Brawn meeting, and after further discussions with Whiting, who seems to have acted as a kind of broker, Ferrari made some kind of commitment to bring modified wings to the next race in Melbourne.

In turn, the FIA agreed that no further action would be taken in Malaysia pending checks on those revised wings in Melbourne, and the teams agreed not to launch the threatened protest on the same understanding.

I don't know the details of what was said, but I checked and double-checked the basics just before the start of the Malaysian GP with people who should know. Anything else you may have read or heard is probably smokescreen.

Armed with some good inside information, on the grid I spoke to Briatore:

"So Ferrari are going to be good boys?" I said.

"They are going to be good boys in Melbourne!" the Italian replied.

"And you won't protest even if they win today?"

"I gave my word," he shrugged. "It's difficult..."

After the race I asked Nick Fry for his thoughts on Honda's position, and what Ferrari might have agreed to.

"We're clearly uncomfortable with the Ferrari interpretation of the rules," he said. "And that's in common with most of the other teams. They've really got a different understanding of what can be done from anyone else.

"Before the race we got a commitment from Charlie Whiting that there would be a clear interpretation before Melbourne, so we're all playing on a level playing field, and we accepted his word that that will happen. We're expecting by the time we get to Melbourne that we all have a similar or the same understanding of how the rules are written.

"What Ferrari have agreed with Charlie, obviously we're not party to. But I get the impression that there is an understanding that the interpretation of the other teams is the correct one."

It was only fair to give Ross Brawn a chance to put his views across.

"We'll do whatever the FIA ask us to do," he told me. "And the FIA haven't asked us to do anything yet. There's a procedure to follow, and we'll follow the procedure."

He wasn't willing to take a secondary question. However, a few hours after every Grand Prix Jean Todt discussed Ferrari's weekend with the press.

The most infamous of these meetings took place in Malaysia back in 1999, when Todt was joined by Brawn to explain the ins and outs of the bargeboard problem that had just got Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher disqualified, and apparently handed the world championships to Mika Hakkinen and McLaren.

Brawn duly held up an offending bargeboard and showed us what was wrong with it, where it had gone astray by 5mm. Of course, events moved on apace in the following days, and suddenly the bargeboard wasn't quite so illegal after all. Some of the people pushing like hell last weekend at Sepang have never quite forgotten what unfolded before the finale in Suzuka 1999...

Anyway, here we were, seven years later, in the very same room or one a couple of doors down. But this time with no bargeboards and no Ross Brawn. Todt talked about the race, and when someone brought up the subject of wings, he echoed Brawn's sentiments about respecting the FIA.

The Colombo question

The Q&A session appeared to be coming to a close, and I waited for my moment before putting on my policeman's 'at. Could I ask a direct question - will you be bringing revised wings to Melbourne? Jean made me repeat it before giving his answer, those steely eyes glancing from side to side rather than fixing me with his usual stare.

"We are not in Melbourne. Ask me the question in Melbourne. Myself, I try to be a manager. I'm not a technical director. So my people know much better, and they will then suggest to me what to do. You must know your limits in life. I try to know mine."

So no deal has been done?

"I would never do a deal with anybody in this business. Only people I contract to work with Ferrari. That's the only deal I do..."

Where do we go from here?

Publicly, Ferrari are still maintaining that 'respect the FIA' line, and in the circumstances I suppose they cannot do anything else. There was of course no way that Todt could have acknowledged on Sunday that there was a deal, and that particular word may not have entered his head in respect of any discussions he had that day.

There was also no way that he could even countenance any suggestion that pressure from other teams - either directly or channelled via the FIA - could have influenced the team's thinking. And that policy will no doubt be maintained, whatever happens in Melbourne.

Equally, rivals have no real wish to stir things up any more. There is even a scenario where Ferrari turn up with revised wings, they are approved by the FIA, the eight teams are satisfied that the job has been done, and no more is heard about it. At the other end of the scale, if they turn up with the same arrangement as seen in Bahrain and Malaysia, all hell will break loose.

The interesting thing will be if there is no further communication from the FIA in the coming days in terms of revised standards of deflection testing and so on. If there is a formal change, then Ferrari can point to the new ruling and say look, the goalposts have moved, the wings we think are legal are no longer so, and we've complied.

On the other hand, what if there isn't a formal change, and they still bring new wings? That can only mean that the team have conceded that what they ran before was not going to be allowed to run again, whatever the results of the standard FIA tests.

I have some sympathy for Ross Brawn, a man I've known for some 16 years, and admire a great deal. As he noted earlier, it's the job of every team's technical leader to push the limits, and he's proved better at that than most. He is adamant that the wings are legal, and can point to the car passing the tests as they are written.

Equally, every technical director knows that sometimes an advantage they've found - even if apparently legal - can be taken away at almost any time. Some teams have spent a lot of money going down development paths that the FIA has very quickly closed off.

There may also have been an element of the Al Capone syndrome here. For all his more heinous crimes, the Chicago mobster was finally nailed for tax evasion. Who knows, it may well be that the neatly moving Ferrari front wing serves no useful purpose, but its high profile TV appearance has led directly to the team losing the use of the thing that really did something - the rear wing...

The bigger picture

What happened on Sunday may have avoided a potentially huge mess. Just think of what happened with BAR at Imola last year, and how that saga rumbled on. Far better to catch something early and relatively painlessly. That could have been done with the BAR fuel tank saga; suspicions had been aroused among rival teams (including Ferrari), the FIA was tipped off, and yet nothing happened until the cars finished third and fifth in Imola. Then it all kicked off.

By indicating their intention to protest, the eight teams didn't necessarily expect the response they got on Sunday, but their letter had the effect of defusing the situation - assuming Ferrari do indeed bring different wings to Australia, and everyone is happy. Ferrari will also surely much prefer a quiet, albeit frustrating, end to the affair.

The bottom line is that other teams wanted to know where the line should be drawn in respect of this particular regulation. They had one idea, Ferrari another. Had the latter interpretation been given the OK, everyone else would have pursued the same direction - and I'm not saying that others haven't already explored the margins in this area - and that would not have been a good thing for the sport.

It must be frustrating for the FIA that despite its carefully drawn up testing methods, a car that's legal in the garage is not when running on the track - shades of the Brabham BT49 that Messrs Whiting and Herbie Blash ran all those years ago!

In this very complex area, there has to be scope for new ways of keeping that playing field level, using official cameras and/or a physical method of measuring deflection at high speed.

There may be greater forces at play here, too. The next week or so will be critical for Grand Prix racing, and the whole issue of who will sign up for 2008 remains in the balance. A huge row was not what certain parties needed to see right now. Renault, Honda, McLaren-Mercedes, Toyota and BMW left Malaysia in rather better mood than they otherwise might have. And who knows? Maybe somewhere along the line there will be a benefit for Ferrari.

A final thought. The Scuderia might be on the receiving end this time, but it wasn't always so. Perhaps Ross should take a look at the F399 bargeboard he keeps on display in his office. After all, Malaysia '99 kicked off seven years of good luck...

[Dirty Sanchez]

The Michelin thing was another example of Ferrari getting the FIA of doing their bidding. They used those tires for something like 2 seasons before Ferrari protested and that was because they were getting their asses kicked and had no hope of catching up.your memory is astonishingly poor. the year that they had no hope of catching up was the same year they won both titles :gomer:

it doesn't matter how long they used the tires beforehand... they were able to convince the FIA that they should change their interpretation of the rules in much the same way that the teams have convinced the FIA that their method of testing for wing deflection can be "beaten" for lack of a better word.

ferrari-haters trying to create a controversey where there isn't one. nothing new :thumdown:

[Gomerbilly]

your memory is astonishingly poor. the year that they had no hope of catching up was the same year they won both titles :gomer:

it doesn't matter how long they used the tires beforehand... they were able to convince the FIA that they should change their interpretation of the rules in much the same way that the teams have convinced the FIA that their method of testing for wing deflection can be "beaten" for lack of a better word.

ferrari-haters trying to create a controversey where there isn't one. nothing new :thumdown:


Whatever.....Ferarri apologists who can't be objective; nothing new. :shakehead

I don't agree with your interpretation but I'm tired of this subject. Someone else can argue it. I'm ready for the next race.

[Dirty Sanchez]

no worries. it was pretty obvious you were losing steam once McLaren were identified as another team with dubious aero :)

[Gomerbilly]

no worries. it was pretty obvious you were losing steam once McLaren were identified as another team with dubious aero :)


Yeah, well..... read my post above. I think this crap hurts the sport in the long run. Mosley just gets more ammunition to impose his crack induced vision of F-1.

[Dirty Sanchez]

Yeah, well..... read my post above. I think this crap hurts the sport in the long run. Mosley just gets more ammunition to impose his crack induced vision of F-1.your previous post and this one are complete nonsense. wtf does this have to do with Max Mosley? I suggest you brush up on your facts before you tackle this one...

"this crap" is what shapes the sport and what helps define it as the most technologically advanced form of racing on the planet. they try to find maximum benefit while still passing tech. over time, as the boundaries are pushed, certain things maybe interpreted/measured a little differently... they are working towards the absolute edge of the regulations.

you accuse me of being an apologist and not being objective, yet you are the one taking the view that "Ferrari (is) Cheating Again!" when the fact remains that their car passed tech in Bahrain and Malaysia along with the McLaren and BMW. you still haven't shown where Ferrari has cheated? and you can't...

[Spicoli]

no worries. it was pretty obvious you were losing steam once McLaren were identified as another team with dubious aero :)

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a358/black_market_/6577sjeybzdrkj.gif

[racer2c]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a358/black_market_/6577sjeybzdrkj.gif


The Truffle Shuffle! LOL!

[Cam]

The Truffle Shuffle! LOL!
:confused:

[racer2c]

:confused:

The kid in the mini-video clip played "Chunk" in the 1985 Spielberg written film 'The Goonies'. the little thing he is doing is called the Truffle Shuffle. According to IMDB he used to do it on the sidelines of Berkley football games.

Link (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0169480/bio)

[Gomerbilly]

your previous post and this one are complete nonsense. wtf does this have to do with Max Mosley? I suggest you brush up on your facts before you tackle this one...

"this crap" is what shapes the sport and what helps define it as the most technologically advanced form of racing on the planet. they try to find maximum benefit while still passing tech. over time, as the boundaries are pushed, certain things maybe interpreted/measured a little differently... they are working towards the absolute edge of the regulations.

you accuse me of being an apologist and not being objective, yet you are the one taking the view that "Ferrari (is) Cheating Again!" when the fact remains that their car passed tech in Bahrain and Malaysia along with the McLaren and BMW. you still haven't shown where Ferrari has cheated? and you can't...


Piss off..... Whose the ****ing tard now? You obviously didn't read what I wrote and refuse to do so or you wouldn't have written this last post. You seem to be the one that has a problem with facts. If you read what I posted in my previous posts, you'd understand the point I was making about the FIA and Mosley. You obviously didn't read it, so don't waste my time and have the ****ing gall to question my grasp of the facts. Utterly rude. You seem to have your panties in a wad over this way more than I do. There's a lot of subtlety to this whole argument that you apparently can't grasp. So be it. As I stated before, I'm quite through with this thread unless you want to not read earlier posts and start needless arguments again.

[Spicoli]

Oh this will be entertainment for the day. :D

[chop456]

Whose the ****ing tard now?

Not a good lead-off. :D

[NismoZ]

Geez, how many times can you be through?

[Dirty Sanchez]

:laugh:

I've read every post in this thread. In none of them have substantiated your claim that Ferrari are cheating. the fact remains: Ferrari passed tech in Bahrain and Malaysia and all points earned are intact. you've completely missed the boat on the Michelin comparison... it is quite similar. Ferrari aren't cheating anymore now than all of the Michelin teams did for the years they used their tires before the interpretation of the rules was changed. you've also failed to establish any links to this situation and Max Mosley.

instead you've claimed to be done with this thread multiple times :rofl:





good morning, tard :gomer:

[Dirty Sanchez]

interesting to note that even other new teams are being suspected of various things. this includes squeaky clean renault :gomer:

[Cam]

interesting to note that even other new teams are being suspected of various things. this includes squeaky clean renault :gomer:

Once again a by-product of teams trying to find that extra 10th after Mad Max tried to slow 'em down by lopping 2 cylinders off the formula. :gomer:

[Dirty Sanchez]

Once again a by-product of teams trying to find that extra 10th after Mad Max tried to slow 'em down by lopping 2 cylinders off the formula. :gomer:unfair criticism of max, once again. the V8 proposal came out of the technical working group. it did not suddenly appear in max's head.

get your facts straight :thumdown:

[Cam]

unfair criticism of max, once again. the V8 proposal came out of the technical working group. it did not suddenly appear in max's head.

get your facts straight :thumdown:

FIA Unveils Radical Proposal to Cut F1 Costs by 90 Percent (http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/17615/)

Who is in charge at the FIA? Whos picture is that at the top of the article? :gomer: What is it with your unhealthy infatuation and support of the lawyerin' one anyway? :saywhat:

[Dirty Sanchez]

a 2.4L V6 was first publicly proposed by Martin Whitmarsh of McLaren six years ago. the decrease in displacement was proposed by the teams... not Max.

link (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/2000/feb02/tytler.html)

I'm only infatuated with the truth. something you and others continue to blur on a regular basis.

[Cam]

a 2.4L V6 was first publicly proposed by Martin Whitmarsh of McLaren six years ago. the decrease in displacement was proposed by the teams... not Max.

link (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/2000/feb02/tytler.html)

I'm only infatuated with the truth. something you and others continue to blur on a regular basis.


McLaren's Martin Whitmarsh suggested that the capacity of Formula One engines should be reduced to perhaps 2.4 liters in a 6 cylinder block. Whitmarsh concluded that, "High revving six-cylinder engines would still sound great and it would be a packaging challenge." The flaw in this argument is that within a few years someone might find a way to manufacture a V6 engine that produces 800 bhp and we will be back to square one.

Thats 4 less..... ;) Where is the V8?

[Dirty Sanchez]

Thats 4 less..... ;) Where is the V8?that came out of the TWG... which is comprised of Charlie Whiting of the FIA and a technical representative from every team.

[Dirty Sanchez]

pow! (http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=159477&FS=F1) :gomer:

[Cam]

This is priceless! Now Max is having "visions"!


In the final analysis, it is a question of "Vision". Mosley recently stated, "It's a question of where you want to do it and how you want do it.

Thanks for the link J! :D

[Gomerbilly]

:laugh:

I've read every post in this thread. In none of them have substantiated your claim that Ferrari are cheating. the fact remains: Ferrari passed tech in Bahrain and Malaysia and all points earned are intact. you've completely missed the boat on the Michelin comparison... it is quite similar. Ferrari aren't cheating anymore now than all of the Michelin teams did for the years they used their tires before the interpretation of the rules was changed. you've also failed to establish any links to this situation and Max Mosley.

instead you've claimed to be done with this thread multiple times :rofl:





good morning, tard :gomer:


You're defending cheating and Max Mosley. Do you have a Bin Laden t-Shirt too?

I never linked this situation to Mosley. That comment just proves you didn't read what I wrote or can't comprehend it. Go read what I wrote AGAIN and maybe you'll get it this tme.

Your argument is lame. It's like saying you can build a 2.6 L V-8 because the rules don't explicitly say you can't and if you don't get called out on it, it's okay. You keep bringing up that the cars passed scrutineering in the first two races, but that assumes the FIA knew what the wings did. They didn't. Had they known, they probably would not have passed.

Regardless, the suspect wings won't be on the cars for the next race and that fact supports my argument far more than it does yours.

[Dirty Sanchez]

hi again :)

I'm not defending cheating at all. for one thing there wasn't any. that is a fact (this needs to be emphasized for you) as evidenced by the official results of both races. until you can prove otherwise (you can't) your assertion is completely without merit.

I'm also not defending max mosley. I'm just correcting another false claim. I've also read on this board where max was blamed for the single-tire per race rule from a season ago when in fact (again) that idea came from michelin!

but back to the wings for a moment... according to Sergio Rinland (google his name if you are unfamiliar)


"The commotion around Ferrari's flexing front wing is a bit of a litmus test for F1," Rinland wrote in his column in Autosprint magazine.

"That's because, with the solution of the extra flap on top, the Maranello men put in practice what every other team do, but while Ferrari's solution is visible to the naked eye, their rivals' isn't.

"Everyone works towards making the front wing not only flex, but also give it torsion capability. McLaren, for example, obtain this effect even without the aid of the extra wing Ferrari has. Congratulations to them.

"I've been very surprised by Renault's rear wing, with its ability to flex along the vertical axis. But the FIA, who introduced a long series of checks on wings flexibility, in this case verifies the deflection only along the horizontal axis. I'm surprised no one has copied the R26 yet."this is a standard practice for all teams. now that there is a commotion about it and some finger-pointing going on we are seeing that the FIA is tightening their interpretation/enforcement on aero. its all part of the normal evolution and search for a legal advantage within the framework of the rules. if a car passes scrutineering, its legal. its really that simple.

as far as what ferrari are bringing to melbourne...


''We would have brought new, developed wings (to Melbourne) anyway,'' he said. ''It is part of our intended development programme.''pwnd ;)

[Dr. Corkski]

Once again a by-product of teams trying to find that extra 10th after Mad Max tried to slow 'em down by lopping 2 cylinders off the formula. :gomer:Most teams would be trying to find that extra 10th of a second even if they had 12 cylinders. Welcome to F1. :gomer:

Renault cheating too? #2 to Super Aguri.

[Gomerbilly]

hi again :)

I'm not defending cheating at all. for one thing there wasn't any. that is a fact (this needs to be emphasized for you) as evidenced by the official results of both races. until you can prove otherwise (you can't) your assertion is completely without merit.

I'm also not defending max mosley. I'm just correcting another false claim. I've also read on this board where max was blamed for the single-tire per race rule from a season ago when in fact (again) that idea came from michelin!

but back to the wings for a moment... according to Sergio Rinland (google his name if you are unfamiliar)

this is a standard practice for all teams. now that there is a commotion about it and some finger-pointing going on we are seeing that the FIA is tightening their interpretation/enforcement on aero. its all part of the normal evolution and search for a legal advantage within the framework of the rules. if a car passes scrutineering, its legal. its really that simple.

as far as what ferrari are bringing to melbourne...

pwnd ;)

I know who Rinland (still with Sauber?) is but he isn't speaking from a position of authority. This practise isn't new but it is problematic (see my original post about Mosley/FIA). If you'll recall, I called the title of this thread a 'red herring'. If you don't know what that means, you can look it up. It wasn't "cheating" but certainly was a stretch. This whole episode was an unnecessary leap into the grey area. Why take the risk? How much money/time/resources were wasted on a high risk area of development that now is banned? Nevermind the PR hit. I like to see technical innovation but this was stupid and against the spirit of the regulation. I can't believe anyone in the affected teams didn't see this coming. What this tells me is the FIA cannot effectively police and scrutineer the current formula and I think the FIA are effectively admitting that when they introduce these draconian technical regulations. Since the teams cannot restrain themselves, the FIA will do it for them. F-1 from 2008 on is going to be a very different animal I fear.


Mosley was responsible for the single tire rule in the fact that he insisted on some sort of change. If I recall, he proposed cutting more grooves in the tires or even using treaded tires. In response, Michelin proposed a sinlge race tire. In that sense, he's responsible.

[Spicoli]

hi again :)

I'm not defending cheating at all. for one thing there wasn't any. that is a fact (this needs to be emphasized for you) as evidenced by the official results of both races. until you can prove otherwise (you can't) your assertion is completely without merit.

I'm also not defending max mosley. I'm just correcting another false claim. I've also read on this board where max was blamed for the single-tire per race rule from a season ago when in fact (again) that idea came from michelin!

but back to the wings for a moment... according to Sergio Rinland (google his name if you are unfamiliar)

this is a standard practice for all teams. now that there is a commotion about it and some finger-pointing going on we are seeing that the FIA is tightening their interpretation/enforcement on aero. its all part of the normal evolution and search for a legal advantage within the framework of the rules. if a car passes scrutineering, its legal. its really that simple.

as far as what ferrari are bringing to melbourne...

pwnd ;)

http://image42.webshots.com/43/5/78/49/2773578490050052316DaEUiL_ph.jpg

I thought ^^^that^^^ was pwned? :laugh:

[Dirty Sanchez]

^utterly retarded... in no particular order:

why pursue a legal advantage? do you really need that question answered for you? :laugh:

teams will spend whatever amount of money they have. sometimes they will pursue things that get outlawed completely... all in the pursuit of a small, even temporary benefit. the FIA can institute some cost-cutting measures which limit areas of spending and research... but they will just find other areas to spend money. its the way F1 has always been. your assertion that this is suddenly problematic suggests that you know very little about the sport.

the FIA handled this professionally and smoothly. they remain firmly in control of the sporting/technical regularions.... or maybe you forgot that there were ZERO protests following bahrain and malaysia. that's not to suggest that the team's will rightly try to exploit the regulations in other areas to seek out maximum benefit. its only cheating when you're busted...

what draconian measures are referring to, btw? the 3-year freeze on engine development? well that was brought forward by Renault more than a year ago and they continue to be the driving force behind that particular regulation change. F1 from 2008 will continue to be the pinnacle of motorsport and one of the most watched, talked about, written about sports on earth. innerweb tards will still be complaining about it too :gomer: waaaaaaaah

only the passage of a hard spending cap will truly save the teams/manufacturers from themselves. thankfully, I don't see this ever happening. but cost-cutting measures are still valuable as they lower the bottom-end price of participation in the sport.

rinland not speaking from a position of authority? he's an ex-formula one designer. sorry but rinland>gomerbilly on the topic of aerodynamics in formula 1. actually anything involved with F1 rinland>gomertard :gomer:

what PR hit? I'm sure Ferrari don't mind one bit their name in the headlines and their current position in the standings. they sold a record number of cars last year.

max did not suggest the single tire per race regulations. he merely brought it forward for approval at the suggestion of michelin. the teams unanimously approved the change. he is criticized for working against the teams, he is criticized for working with the teams, he is criticized for working against the suppliers/manufacturers, he is criticized for working with them and implementing their ideas. he was blamed for michelin bringing the wrong tires to indianapolis for ****'s sake!

but go ahead and blame max anyway... its a popular game...




this is probably not my last post on the subject, btw... :rofl:

[Gomerbilly]

[QUOTE=Crapus]^utterly retarded... in no particular order:

why pursue a legal advantage? do you really need that question answered for you?

teams will spend whatever amount of money they have. sometimes they will pursue things that get outlawed completely... all in the pursuit of a small, even temporary benefit. the FIA can institute some cost-cutting measures which limit areas of spending and research... but they will just find other areas to spend money. its the way F1 has always been. your assertion that this is suddenly problematic suggests that you know very little about the sport.

the FIA handled this professionally and smoothly. they remain firmly in control of the sporting/technical regularions.... or maybe you forgot that there were ZERO protests following bahrain and malaysia. that's not to suggest that the team's will rightly try to exploit the regulations in other areas to seek out maximum benefit. its only cheating when you're busted...

what draconian measures are referring to, btw? the 3-year freeze on engine development? well that was brought forward by Renault more than a year ago and they continue to be the driving force behind that particular regulation change. F1 from 2008 will continue to be the pinnacle of motorsport and one of the most watched, talked about, written about sports on earth. innerweb tards will still be complaining about it too :gomer: waaaaaaaah

only the passage of a hard spending cap will truly save the teams/manufacturers from themselves. thankfully, I don't see this ever happening. but cost-cutting measures are still valuable as they lower the bottom-end price of participation in the sport.

rinland not speaking from a position of authority? he's an ex-formula one designer. sorry but rinland>gomerbilly on the topic of aerodynamics in formula 1. actually anything involved with F1 rinland>gomertard :gomer:

what PR hit? I'm sure Ferrari don't mind one bit their name in the headlines and their current position in the standings. they sold a record number of cars last year.

max did not suggest the single tire per race regulations. he merely brought it forward for approval at the suggestion of michelin. the teams unanimously approved the change. he is criticized for working against the teams, he is criticized for working with the teams, he is criticized for working against the suppliers/manufacturers, he is criticized for working with them and implementing their ideas. he was blamed for michelin bringing the wrong tires to indianapolis for ****'s sake!

but go ahead and blame max anyway... its a popular game...




this is probably not my last post on the subject, btw...



What a joke! You can't comprehend what's written and go around calling other people retarded. You just evade and twist the argument so you don't have to concede anything.

Where you got that I said Mosley brought forth the single tire rule is beyond me. Laughable! Rinland isn't employed by the FIA or apparently even a team anymore, therefore he's not in a position of authority - another fact but you don't seem to like those too much. It's his ****ing opinion - big deal.

The other stuff - sounds like an FIA press release. :rolleyes:

All you've done here is established yourself as a Ferrari apologist, a Mosley supporter and an unfair/poor debater.

[Gomerbilly]

[QUOTE=Crapus]^utterly retarded... in no particular order:

why pursue a legal advantage? do you really need that question answered for you?

teams will spend whatever amount of money they have. sometimes they will pursue things that get outlawed completely... all in the pursuit of a small, even temporary benefit. the FIA can institute some cost-cutting measures which limit areas of spending and research... but they will just find other areas to spend money. its the way F1 has always been. your assertion that this is suddenly problematic suggests that you know very little about the sport.

the FIA handled this professionally and smoothly. they remain firmly in control of the sporting/technical regularions.... or maybe you forgot that there were ZERO protests following bahrain and malaysia. that's not to suggest that the team's will rightly try to exploit the regulations in other areas to seek out maximum benefit. its only cheating when you're busted...

what draconian measures are referring to, btw? the 3-year freeze on engine development? well that was brought forward by Renault more than a year ago and they continue to be the driving force behind that particular regulation change. F1 from 2008 will continue to be the pinnacle of motorsport and one of the most watched, talked about, written about sports on earth. innerweb tards will still be complaining about it too :gomer: waaaaaaaah

only the passage of a hard spending cap will truly save the teams/manufacturers from themselves. thankfully, I don't see this ever happening. but cost-cutting measures are still valuable as they lower the bottom-end price of participation in the sport.

rinland not speaking from a position of authority? he's an ex-formula one designer. sorry but rinland>gomerbilly on the topic of aerodynamics in formula 1. actually anything involved with F1 rinland>gomertard :gomer:

what PR hit? I'm sure Ferrari don't mind one bit their name in the headlines and their current position in the standings. they sold a record number of cars last year.

max did not suggest the single tire per race regulations. he merely brought it forward for approval at the suggestion of michelin. the teams unanimously approved the change. he is criticized for working against the teams, he is criticized for working with the teams, he is criticized for working against the suppliers/manufacturers, he is criticized for working with them and implementing their ideas. he was blamed for michelin bringing the wrong tires to indianapolis for ****'s sake!

but go ahead and blame max anyway... its a popular game...




this is probably not my last post on the subject, btw...



What a joke! You can't comprehend what's written and go around calling other people retarded. You just evade and twist the argument so you don't have to concede anything.

Where you got that I said Mosley brought forth the single tire rule is beyond me. Laughable! Rinland isn't employed by the FIA or apparently even a team anymore, therefore he's not in a position of authority - another fact but you don't seem to like those too much. It's his ****ing opinion - big deal.

The other stuff - sounds like an FIA press release. :rolleyes:

All you've done here is established yourself as a Ferrari apologist, a Mosley supporter and an unfair/poor debater.

[Dr. Corkski]

Double posts are what's lame. :gomer:

[Dirty Sanchez]

:rofl:

[Gomerbilly]

Touche. That is funny. :D It was Mosley's fault.

[Ed_Severson]

Where you got that I said Mosley brought forth the single tire rule is beyond me.

Maybe, just maybe, it might have been this:


Mosley was responsible for the single tire rule ...

My suggestion? Quit while you're behind, and before you get any behinder. But hey, you don't need my advice. You've clearly got this one covered on your own. :rofl:

Big :thumbup: to Ferrari (and the others) for pushing the limits. That's what Formula 1 is all about, and that's one of the things that makes it great. Once this very minor shitstorm has passed, it won't be long until somebody else finds an equally creative work-around for another seemingly restrictive technical regulation. That's how you learn new things, how the sport advances, and ultimately, how the best find their way to the pointy end of the grid.

If you want a form of motorsport run in a dictatorial fashion, ruled with an iron fist by some half-wit armed with an airtight rulebook, an overwhelming concern for "the show" and a complete disregard for technical advancements, and populated by a bunch of cookie-cutter teams who mostly don't even muster the effort to find legal ways to circumvent the conventional way of doing things, you'd be better served watching TAXICAR on Sundays.

Judging from what I've seen so far in this thread, you'll fit right in. :gomer:

[Gomerbilly]

Maybe, just maybe, it might have been this:



My suggestion? Quit while you're behind, and before you get any behinder. But hey, you don't need my advice. You've clearly got this one covered on your own. :rofl:

Big :thumbup: to Ferrari (and the others) for pushing the limits. That's what Formula 1 is all about, and that's one of the things that makes it great. Once this very minor shitstorm has passed, it won't be long until somebody else finds an equally creative work-around for another seemingly restrictive technical regulation. That's how you learn new things, how the sport advances, and ultimately, how the best find their way to the pointy end of the grid.

If you want a form of motorsport run in a dictatorial fashion, ruled with an iron fist by some half-wit armed with an airtight rulebook, an overwhelming concern for "the show" and a complete disregard for technical advancements, and populated by a bunch of cookie-cutter teams who mostly don't even muster the effort to find legal ways to circumvent the conventional way of doing things, you'd be better served watching TAXICAR on Sundays.

Judging from what I've seen so far in this thread, you'll fit right in. :gomer:


That's cool. I see you went to the Crapus school of BS. Why don't you quote the entire sentence? But then you couldn't make **** up and twist the argument. You're as lame as he is. I've argued the complete opposite of what you described but you already know that. Neither one of you can argue your case on merit. I've tried to be fair but neither of you is interested in serious discussion apparently. Go jerk off to the technical regs if that's your thing.

[Gomerbilly]

Look what Ed Severson wrote!

"Big :thumbup: to .... pushing .... restrictive technical regulation."



You're in favor of ruining the sport! You're lame! BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.....

I can selectively quote you too.


Moron.......... :rolleyes:

[Gomerbilly]

Maybe, just maybe, it might have been this:



My suggestion? Quit while you're behind, and before you get any behinder. But hey, you don't need my advice. You've clearly got this one covered on your own. :rofl:

Big :thumbup: to Ferrari (and the others) for pushing the limits. That's what Formula 1 is all about, and that's one of the things that makes it great. Once this very minor shitstorm has passed, it won't be long until somebody else finds an equally creative work-around for another seemingly restrictive technical regulation. That's how you learn new things, how the sport advances, and ultimately, how the best find their way to the pointy end of the grid.

If you want a form of motorsport run in a dictatorial fashion, ruled with an iron fist by some half-wit armed with an airtight rulebook, an overwhelming concern for "the show" and a complete disregard for technical advancements, and populated by a bunch of cookie-cutter teams who mostly don't even muster the effort to find legal ways to circumvent the conventional way of doing things, you'd be better served watching TAXICAR on Sundays.

Judging from what I've seen so far in this thread, you'll fit right in. :gomer:



Just to be fair, this is what I wrote:

Mosley was responsible for the single tire rule in the fact that he insisted on some sort of change. If I recall, he proposed cutting more grooves in the tires or even using treaded tires. In response, Michelin proposed a sinlge race tire. In that sense, he's responsible.

[Ed_Severson]

A bit defensive, no? Three responses to the same post in 7 minutes. :rofl:

I guess this ...


You seem to have your panties in a wad over this way more than I do.

... doesn't really apply anymore, eh?

Bitch all you want; it was you who introduced Mosley into the discussion, you who made the claim that "Ferrari got the FIA to do their bidding" on the 2003 Michelin issue because "they were getting their asses kicked and had no hope of catching up" in a year where they scored a double championship, and ultimately, you who started a thread with a complete lie for a title just so you could bitch about the latest round of Ferrari-induced paranoia that rocked your world.

(By the way, I changed the verb tense on some of those quoted words, and I left out parts of the original sentences they were in. Hope I didn't wreck the context; I'd hate for you to have to muster another three responses. :gomer: )

You're no more interested in "serious discussion" than you were when you started this thread with a ******** headline. But if it makes you feel better to call me a moron, cry about selective quotations :rofl: , and generally throw a fit because I'm not buying your brand of crap, go for it. Your original premise was garbage, and now you're pedaling as hard and as fast as you can to get away from it because you've been pretty thoroughly undressed on it.


Look what Ed Severson wrote!

"Big thumbs up to .... pushing .... restrictive technical regulation."

Somebody help me out here ... is this the part where I pretend like I've been horribly misquoted, call him "lame," and announce my resignation from this discussion?

Indeed ... big thumbs up to pushing restrictive technical regulation. At least one of us ought to stick to his original story. :gomer:

[Gomerbilly]

A bit defensive, no? Three responses to the same post in 7 minutes.

I guess this ...



... doesn't really apply anymore, eh?

Bitch all you want; it was you who introduced Mosley into the discussion, you who made the claim that "Ferrari got the FIA to do their bidding" on the 2003 Michelin issue because "they were getting their asses kicked and had no hope of catching up" in a year where they scored a double championship, and ultimately, you who started a thread with a complete lie for a title just so you could bitch about the latest round of Ferrari-induced paranoia that rocked your world.

(By the way, I changed the verb tense on some of those quoted words, and I left out parts of the original sentences they were in. Hope I didn't wreck the context; I'd hate for you to have to muster another three responses.

You're no more interested in "serious discussion" than you were when you started this thread with a ******** headline. But if it makes you feel better to call me a moron, cry about selective quotations :rofl: , and generally throw a fit because I'm not buying your brand of crap, go for it. Your original premise was garbage, and now you're pedaling as hard and as fast as you can to get away from it because you've been pretty thoroughly undressed on it.



Somebody help me out here ... is this the part where I pretend like I've been horribly misquoted, call him "lame," and announce my resignation from this discussion?

Indeed ... big thumbs up to pushing restrictive technical regulation. At least one of us ought to stick to his original story. :gomer:


WTF - ever! :laugh:

You guys did nothing but deflect and obfuscate. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back. You're still lame.

[Ed_Severson]

deflect and obfuscate

:rofl:

I'm not the one who's unwilling to take ownership of the words he chose.

You made a claim of cheating, and utterly failed to substantiate it. Now you don't want to take credit it for it anymore, calling it a "red herring" (something that it most definitely is not, by the way).

Go ahead and initiate that "serious discussion" you've been craving anytime you're ready. We're all on pins and needles waiting for your proof of cheating. :gomer:

I'll take this opportunity to express my full confidence in your ability to "argue your case on merit," so long as it's understood that your interpretation of meritorious debate is feigning offense at being accurately quoted, repeatedly calling your opponent "lame" and continuing to ignore any and all requests for any evidence to support your flimsy premise.

:laugh:

Carry on ... I'm so through with this! :cry:

[eiregosod]

Maybe, just maybe, it might
If you want a form of motorsport run in a dictatorial fashion, ruled with an iron fist by some half-wit armed with an airtight rulebook, an overwhelming concern for "the show" and a complete disregard for technical advancements, and populated by a bunch of cookie-cutter teams who mostly don't even muster the effort to find legal ways to circumvent the conventional way of doing things, you'd be better served watching TAXICAR on Sundays.

welcome to f1 in 2009.

don't bother checking under the cowling, its the same engine as 2008. or a b-spec of the best engine from 2008.

Super aguri/torro rosso , the derivative teams, with old chassis. How you like your cookies?

overwhelming concern for the show. seen f1 qualifying over the past 4 years? none of the changes were made to improve the sporting challenge, but to ensure that enough eyeballs are watching.

From where I see things, f1 is becoming less popular. TV ratings are down, some broadcasters have given up on it. ITV had to give back advertising mony because the ratings were not as expected. Other TV broadcasters are spending less on their F1 coverage. Newspapers that used to devote 2 coloured broadsheet pages to a race weekend have cut down to a mere column. I'm pretty sure Max & bernie are aware of what is happeningc

[Spicoli]

welcome to f1 in 2009.

don't bother checking under the cowling, its the same engine as 2008. or a b-spec of the best engine from 2008.

Super aguri/torro rosso , the derivative teams, with old chassis. How you like your cookies?

overwhelming concern for the show. seen f1 qualifying over the past 4 years? none of the changes were made to improve the sporting challenge, but to ensure that enough eyeballs are watching.

From where I see things, f1 is becoming less popular. TV ratings are down, some broadcasters have given up on it. ITV had to give back advertising mony because the ratings were not as expected. Other TV broadcasters are spending less on their F1 coverage. Newspapers that used to devote 2 coloured broadsheet pages to a race weekend have cut down to a mere column. I'm pretty sure Max & bernie are aware of what is happeningc


:thumbup: :thumbup:






:gomer:

[omni]

welcome to f1 in 2009.

don't bother checking under the cowling, its the same engine as 2008. or a b-spec of the best engine from 2008.

Super aguri/torro rosso , the derivative teams, with old chassis. How you like your cookies?

overwhelming concern for the show. seen f1 qualifying over the past 4 years? none of the changes were made to improve the sporting challenge, but to ensure that enough eyeballs are watching.

From where I see things, f1 is becoming less popular. TV ratings are down, some broadcasters have given up on it. ITV had to give back advertising mony because the ratings were not as expected. Other TV broadcasters are spending less on their F1 coverage. Newspapers that used to devote 2 coloured broadsheet pages to a race weekend have cut down to a mere column. I'm pretty sure Max & bernie are aware of what is happeningc

It's pleasant and novel a few can really see what's coming. :thumbup:

[Spicoli]

I'M OUTTA THIS ONE! :)



:runs:






:thumbup:

[Dirty Sanchez]

First I gotta ask this questions: is Gomerbilly really Gonzo… that Boneranger from Paperwagon? :laugh:

a recap:

Gomerbilly starts thread titled "Ferrari Cheating Again!"

yours truly contends that Ferrari are not cheating and also points out that two teams who originally intended to protest (but didn't) are also suspected of having moveable aero devices.

Gomerbilly, mockingly questions who the two "mystery" teams are and says that it's a fact that Ferrari are using illegal parts despite the fact that their cars were deemed 100% legal, scored points, and improved their position in the championship... much to the chagrin of ferrari-haters worldwide.

innernet hero, Crapus, dutifully provides the facts on the two mystery teams.

Gomerbilly, in a stroke of debating genius, declares that Ferrari is cheating twice as much because both of their wings are suspected.

OC superstar, Crapus, reminds supergotard#1 that they are not cheating again and that the thread title is factually incorrect and brings up a similar example that helps illustrate how enforcement of regulations is subject to change. this proves to be a fruitless exercise because Crapus is dealing with a giant poopstick of a poster.

Gomerbilly admits that the thread title is misleading and later admits that Ferrari did not cheat (oh, but he’s not done…read on!)... backing down from earlier assumptions and claims. In a further display of ignorance Gomerbilly claims that the Michelin example does not compare and claims that in a season in which Ferrari won both championships they were only complaining because they had no chance of catching up. You gotta love this guy! :rofl:

It’s also at this time that Gomerbilly switches gears and introduces Max Mosley into the discussion… claiming that this situation will somehow damage the sport. It’s also a tad ironic that Gomerbilly later tries to accuse others of twisting and changing the argument. At no time does Gomerbilly offer any evidence of how this situation will damage the sport. We’re still waiting for this actually.

Gomerbilly frustrated about not being able to make a single point, claims to be done with the thread on at least two occasions… yet comes back for more.

Have we established a pattern of contradiction yet?

Further explanation of the Michelin situation prompts Gomerbilly to accuse Crapus of defending cheating. This is strange considering that we have already established that Ferrari did not cheat.

Master(de)bater Gomerbilly also accuses Crapus of defending Max Mosley after Crapus deflates the assertion that Max was behind the V8 engine regulations. Crapus Maximus does this masterfully by supplying link after link and also mentions how lots of ideas that people dislike are falsely attributed to Max and provides example of the single-tire per race regulations.

Gomertard says that because Ferrari are bringing new wings to Melbourne this somehow supports his argument far more than it does mine. Crapus wonders what argument this was? That Ferrari are cheating? Odd considering that it was already established earlier in the thread that they were not cheating. More contradiction?

In response to this renewed attack, Crapus provides more useful commentary on the wings situation from an ex-Formula 1 car designer, Sergio Rinland. Crapus also supplies a quote from Stefano Domenicali regarding their intention to bring an updated wings package as part of their development program. Foiled again, Gomerbilly. Gomerbilly has not tried the Ferrari is cheating angle anymore… but do not be surprised if it comes up again. Right now he’s a drowning man clutching to a straw…

Gomerbilly’s next post clearly illustrates this drowning man scenario as he makes the claims that an ex-Formula 1 designer is not speaking from a position of authority, admits again that Ferrari are not cheating (is he really done with this? Stay tuned and find out!), claims that there was some kind of PR hit (remains completely unsupported)… but it gets better… he asks why teams should pursue a legal advantage! LOL… I really did laugh out loud at this one too. You gotta love this guy! (oops already said that).

Unbelievably, he’s not done though. He also says that this situation is evidence that the FIA doesn’t have control over the regulations despite the fact that there were no protests of any kind, no rules infractions of any kind… merely discussion about how the regulations are to be interpreted. Something that happens on a regular basis. Oh and he claims that Max was responsible for the single tire per race rule… LOL

Crapus meets every one of these points head on...

Gomerbilly’s final response to Crapus doesn’t elaborate on any of the discussion points. He instead accuses Crapus of evading and twisting the argument. This is a bit rich in view of what we already know in this thread isn’t it? Crapus is also labeled a Ferrari apologist. What is there to apologize for when we agree that they did not cheat?

From then on Ed continues the smackdown… I had to work unfortunately. Nice job, Ed :thumbup:

I should be around all day today though… so if you’re feeling froggy, Gomertard. Bring it.

[/iketurner]

[Dirty Sanchez]

welcome to f1 in 2009.

don't bother checking under the cowling, its the same engine as 2008. or a b-spec of the best engine from 2008.

Super aguri/torro rosso , the derivative teams, with old chassis. How you like your cookies?

overwhelming concern for the show. seen f1 qualifying over the past 4 years? none of the changes were made to improve the sporting challenge, but to ensure that enough eyeballs are watching.

From where I see things, f1 is becoming less popular. TV ratings are down, some broadcasters have given up on it. ITV had to give back advertising mony because the ratings were not as expected. Other TV broadcasters are spending less on their F1 coverage. Newspapers that used to devote 2 coloured broadsheet pages to a race weekend have cut down to a mere column. I'm pretty sure Max & bernie are aware of what is happeningcthe same doom and gloom that has been prognositcated for years and never come to pass :gomer:

the qualifying argument is tired as hell, man. it was done to enhance the show and for the most part it worked. that is ofcourse if you realize that the show is on sunday and not on saturday. it was not a perfect system (I'm much more fond of the new one actually) but the mixed grids it provided made for some great races that wouldn't have been possible otherwise. it was absolutely a sporting challenge. furthermore it did ensure equal time for sponsors (something the smaller teams at the time had been asking for a long time!)... and it eliminated qualifying-spec cars (something that was getting out of control from a cost perspective)

I would be interested to see some facts that support your tv ratings argument. recognizing that you live in Ireland, I'd ask you to please include India and China and the rest of the world. this is a world championship, not a european championship.

but supposing for a moment that tv ratings are down and that this somehow translates into a loss of revenue (I don't think it does, btw... the financial situation is much better than it was 2-3 years ago).... surely you would then be in support of cost cutting measures such as a freeze on engine development then? and ofcourse you recognize that the idea comes from Renault... a member of your coveted GPMA. You remember that Group of 9, 8, 7, 6... 5 ;)

Discuss.

[Cam]

Just recieved in my Email.....

For 2010, the FIA has decided there will be new engine specifications. The new F1 engines must be based upon the Volkswagen air-cooled boxer engine of four (4) cylinders, with no more than 1,500 cubic centimeters. The engines will run on gasahol, not gasoline, and will be limited to a maximum of 6,000 rpm, and must use a carburetor with a venturi of no more than 32 millimeters. The engines themselves must last the entire racing season. The new minimum weight for the cars is (without fuel, oil, or coolant LOL) 2,000 pounds. Carbon fiber is banned from all components, and the front suspension must be the twin trailing link units from the original VW beetle. Additional details will be announced in this effort to reduce costs and reduce speed. Finally, a new claiming rule has been announced. A competitor may post a $25,000 bond and claim another competitor's racing car.

Discuss.... :p

[extramundane]

What Felipe thinks of this thread:

http://motorsport.com/photos/f1/2006/mal/f1-2006-mal-xp-0194.jpg

[eiregosod]

the same doom and gloom that has been prognositcated for years and never come to pass :gomer:

the qualifying argument is tired as hell, man. it was done to enhance the show and for the most part it worked. that is ofcourse if you realize that the show is on sunday and not on saturday. it was not a perfect system (I'm much more fond of the new one actually) but the mixed grids it provided made for some great races that wouldn't have been possible otherwise. it was absolutely a sporting challenge. furthermore it did ensure equal time for sponsors (something the smaller teams at the time had been asking for a long time!)... and it eliminated qualifying-spec cars (something that was getting out of control from a cost perspective)

I would be interested to see some facts that support your tv ratings argument. recognizing that you live in Ireland, I'd ask you to please include India and China and the rest of the world. this is a world championship, not a european championship.

but supposing for a moment that tv ratings are down and that this somehow translates into a loss of revenue (I don't think it does, btw... the financial situation is much better than it was 2-3 years ago).... surely you would then be in support of cost cutting measures such as a freeze on engine development then? and ofcourse you recognize that the idea comes from Renault... a member of your coveted GPMA. You remember that Group of 9, 8, 7, 6... 5 ;)

Discuss.

2003 was the first year that there were no 'start line specialists' (Prost, Arrows) to make qualifying runs during the first 10 minutes of the qualifying session. All the running was done in the final 30 minutes.

UK TV ratings were down. 2001 say a big drop. 4 million tuned into watch Schumi win the WDC at the Hungaroring. Bernie is quoted as saying that F1 tv ratings have held up when TV ratings are down. As far as Inda & China goes, they've been opened up, Karthakayen & the China F1 race have sparked interest.

as far as renault goes, as soon ast hey start finishing second the accountant who runs the F1 team will shut it down. I can understand renault wanting to keep the costs down, because the renault f1 guys know that their jobs are at stake.

Sponsorship doesn't really come into play because Honda, Toyota, Ferrari, Renault, BMW, Mercedes , are pretty much self-financing and can still survive even when sponsorship revenue decreases.

the red bull teams and Midland are owned by billionaires. Red bull is pretty much the main sponsor for red-bull and torro rosso.

The only team that really depends on sponsorships is Williams, to a much lesser extent McLaren (since the team isn't wholly owned by Mercedes).

Are the F1 costs being lowered so that the engine development is unattractive to manufacturers? If the manufacturers go, is Bernard hoping that a few Matschidtz & Schnaider clones will replace them?

as far as matschidtz goes, it'll be be much harder to put the reigns on red Bull because they have unlimited funds to spend designing the cars and they couldn't care less about the technology benefits.

[Dirty Sanchez]

so there are no real hard numbers on ratings worldwide so we don't really know if they are up or down or if tv revenue is up or down? I guess we still agree that its the most popular form of racing on earth then. cool ;)

I think you are overstating what renault's intentions are. obviously they seem more concerned about costs than some of the other manufacturers but at no time have they said they would leave the sport if they didn't win. that's ridiculous. its also a little ironic that the "unified" manufacturers seem to have such divergent opinions on costs and engine technology. can anyone else hear the air escaping from the GPMA balloon? :rofl:

but whatever... manufacturers will come and go and sometimes come back again... its the way of F1. and they will survive if any of them leave. the only constant is ferrari :)

In the event that the manufacturers do leave (they won't), I'm quite sure that they have a better plan in place than other openwheel series who depended too heavily on manufacturer involvement.

[Insomniac]

''We would have brought new, developed wings (to Melbourne) anyway,'' he said. ''It is part of our intended development programme.''

You don't expect Ferrari to say they'll be bringing wings that don't allow the separation you saw on TV do you? The difference between the wings they were planning to bring and the ones they will bring is they'll make the necessary changes to remove the flexibility. They didn't cheat, but they won't have that flexibility in the front wing anymore.

Don't get me wrong, you're laying a beating on Gomerbilly, but tyring to use quotes from Ferrari to back you up aren't really the best source. ;)

[NismoZ]

Of course. It is always good to have a "development programme" handy for when your "Overdeveloped program" gets ferreted out! :)