It's over! Hallelujah!

It's over! Hallelujah!

From Autosport:

"The FIA's International Court of Appeal has rejected McLaren's case
over the fuel temperatures of the BMW and Williams cars in last month's
Brazilian Grand Prix."

Congratulations to the panel of judges and, of course, to Kimi!

Mudge

Re: It's over! Hallelujah!

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:05:09 +0000, Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote:

>From Autosport:
>
>"The FIA's International Court of Appeal has rejected McLaren's case
>over the fuel temperatures of the BMW and Williams cars in last month's
>Brazilian Grand Prix."
>
>Congratulations to the panel of judges and, of course, to Kimi!

Certainly congratulations to Kimi, who is a thoroughly deserving
Champion (as everybody has said, even most of McLaren and all the
drivers). I'm not sure about congratulating the panel, I'd like to
think they made the right decision for the right reason, but who can
tell? I think one of the funniest things I've read all year is Ferrari
calling McLaren "naked opportunists" over the appeal. How sad that
such a fine old marque has been reduced to such weasely hypocrisy.
When does Todt go?

--
([:]) by Kimbo!

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? I am not a moderator.

note: hotmail address is a spam bin
www .bykimbo,com

Re: It's over! Hallelujah!

Kim Andrews <somerat@hotmail,com > wrote in
news:169tj31hhg9tm13850g8d1prs4es6l47fs@4ax,com :

> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:05:09 +0000, Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote:
>
>>From Autosport:
>>
>>"The FIA's International Court of Appeal has rejected McLaren's case
>>over the fuel temperatures of the BMW and Williams cars in last
>>month's Brazilian Grand Prix."
>>
>>Congratulations to the panel of judges and, of course, to Kimi!
>
> Certainly congratulations to Kimi, who is a thoroughly deserving
> Champion (as everybody has said, even most of McLaren and all the
> drivers). I'm not sure about congratulating the panel, I'd like to
> think they made the right decision for the right reason, but who can
> tell? I think one of the funniest things I've read all year is Ferrari
> calling McLaren "naked opportunists" over the appeal. How sad that
> such a fine old marque has been reduced to such weasely hypocrisy.
> When does Todt go?
>
Maybe that's part of *why* Braun is leaving (or rather not coming back).
He's tired of that bull.

Re: It's over! Hallelujah!

Kim Andrews <somerat@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:05:09 +0000, Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote:

> I think one of the funniest things I've read all year is Ferrari
> calling McLaren "naked opportunists" over the appeal.

Yes, considering that:

- Kimi won with only one point advantage over Alonso and Alonso (probably)
lost some points in Hungary due to FIA interference;

- McLaren got more points than Ferrari in the track but lost them due
to FIA decisions;

it is a bit rich complaining that McLaren appealed.

> How sad that such a fine old marque has been reduced to such weasely
> hypocrisy.

Is this really unprecedented ? Without even mentioning Schumacher in
Jerez 1997, competition in F1 is ruthless and I suppose there have been
occasions in the past where Ferrari complained/protested/acted offended,
not because they believed what they were saying but because it was what
they needed to do to win.

> When does Todt go?

He is supposed to go in 2008 to Malaysia to work for Proton (I suppose
in road cars, not competition, but feel free to start another "Lotus
return" rumour (not likely, because I doubt that Proton has 150 millions
euros/year, which is estimated to be the absolute minimum to be in F1
above Spyker/Force India or Super Aguri).

Luca di Montezemolo and Todt have been playing political games since
last year (Todt is supposed to have discouraged Schumacher from staying),
and at the moment , it seems Luca has the upper hand.

Farrari in 2009 is rumoured to be: Luca as CEO, Kimi and Alonso driving
(Alonso is supposed to have signed with Luca and this has not been denied).
It is expected that Filipe Massa will be fired, but since Jean Todt
extended his contract to the end of 2010, he will receive a large
severance pay. Of course his manager will receive a percentage of that.
By coincidence his manager is Nicolas Todt :) .

Source: several articles in the Portuguese Autosport signed by
Luís Vasconcelos.

--
http :// www .mat.uc.pt/~rps/

.pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

Re: It's over! Hallelujah!

In article <fhnm9p$kge$1@koala.mat.uc.pt>,
Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro <rps@koala.mat.uc.pt> wrote:

> Farrari in 2009 is rumoured to be: Luca as CEO, Kimi and Alonso driving
> (Alonso is supposed to have signed with Luca and this has not been denied).

I'll believe that when I see it. I don't think Alonso wants to go
anywhere where he wouldn't be the #1 driver, even unofficially. I can't
see Kimi accepting a #2 slot.

--
Joe Claffey | "In the end, everything is a gag."
indianajoe3@comcast,net | - Charlie Chaplin

Re: It's over! Hallelujah!

Indiana Joe <indianajoe3@comcast,net > wrote:
> In article <fhnm9p$kge$1@koala.mat.uc.pt>,
> Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro <rps@koala.mat.uc.pt> wrote:

> > Farrari in 2009 is rumoured to be: Luca as CEO, Kimi and Alonso driving
> > (Alonso is supposed to have signed with Luca and this has not been denied).

> I'll believe that when I see it.

Well, of course. Me too. Even if the sources are well-informed and the
story is true now, things may change for a number of reasons. Even if
contracts have already been signed they can be terminated discreetly
if both parties agree to that.

What I find less likely in this story is that Jean Todt would be able
to commit Ferrari to a multi-year, multi-million contract if his boss
was against it (I think Luca as chairman of the FIAT holding (?) can be
considered Jean Todt's boss ?).

> I don't think Alonso wants to go anywhere where he wouldn't be the #1
> driver, even unofficially. I can't see Kimi accepting a #2 slot.

The idea would be for the two drivers to be treated equally. This is
supposed to be acceptable to Alonso in a way that was not with Hamilton
for at least two reasons:

- Alonso thinks Hamilton had it too easy starting in F1 at the top
("You just haven't earn it yet, baby").
In contrast Kimi Räikkönen started with Sauber, spent five years
with McLaren, and so Alonso respects him.

- Hamilton used effectively the press against Alonso. Apparently
Kimi is unable to play those kinds of political games (in fact
I have read that for most of 2007 a faction inside Ferrari had
such a campaign against him in the Italian press).

--
http :// www .mat.uc.pt/~rps/

.pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

Re: It's over! Hallelujah!

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:45:11 +0000, Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
<rps@koala.mat.uc.pt> wrote:

>
>> How sad that such a fine old marque has been reduced to such weasely
>> hypocrisy.
>
>Is this really unprecedented ? Without even mentioning Schumacher in
>Jerez 1997, competition in F1 is ruthless and I suppose there have been
>occasions in the past where Ferrari complained/protested/acted offended,
>not because they believed what they were saying but because it was what
>they needed to do to win.

I wasn't referring to just this last year.

--
([:]) by Kimbo!

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? I am not a moderator.

note: hotmail address is a spam bin
www .bykimbo,com

Re: It's over! Hallelujah!

Kim Andrews <somerat@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:45:11 +0000, Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
> <rps@koala.mat.uc.pt> wrote:

> >> How sad that such a fine old marque has been reduced to such weasely
> >> hypocrisy.

> >Is this really unprecedented ? Without even mentioning Schumacher in
> >Jerez 1997, competition in F1 is ruthless and I suppose there have been
> >occasions in the past where Ferrari complained/protested/acted offended,
> >not because they believed what they were saying but because it was what
> >they needed to do to win.

> I wasn't referring to just this last year.

When I wrote "occasions in the past" I meant past decades (80s, 70s, 60s)
including when Enzo was alive. I should have been more clear.

--
http :// www .mat.uc.pt/~rps/

.pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

Re: It's over! Hallelujah!

In article <161120071437380644%leave@me.alone>, Curmudgeon
<leave@me.alone> writes:

> From Autosport:
>
> "The FIA's International Court of Appeal has rejected McLaren's case
> over the fuel temperatures of the BMW and Williams cars in last month's
> Brazilian Grand Prix."
>
> Congratulations to the panel of judges and, of course, to Kimi!

It struck me that for consistency with the punishment meted out to
McLaren for giving Hamilton two sets of wets, BMW and Williams should
have been fined for the fuel temperature breach - after all, it was a
breach of the regulations, albeit one that didn't warrant
disqualification. Sheer bloody hyprocrisy by the FIA, and as for
Ferrari's whinging - bah, I hope that their extra $50million gets
stopped so they actually have to compete on a level playing field.

Which reminds me, was anyone else struck by the irony of MS testing
the Ferrari because he "was more familiar with non-driver aid cars"
when traction control was reintroduced because the teams he was with
(Benetton and Ferrari) were suspected of running undetectable traction
control and launch control systems?

--
Mike Fleming

Re: It's over! Hallelujah!

Mike Fleming wrote:
> In article <161120071437380644%leave@me.alone>, Curmudgeon
> <leave@me.alone> writes:
>
>> From Autosport:
>>
>> "The FIA's International Court of Appeal has rejected McLaren's case
>> over the fuel temperatures of the BMW and Williams cars in last month's
>> Brazilian Grand Prix."
>>
>> Congratulations to the panel of judges and, of course, to Kimi!
>
> It struck me that for consistency with the punishment meted out to
> McLaren for giving Hamilton two sets of wets, BMW and Williams should
> have been fined for the fuel temperature breach - after all, it was a
> breach of the regulations, albeit one that didn't warrant
> disqualification.

The Stewards actually ruled that there was "sufficient doubt as to both
the temperature of the fuel actually on board the car and the true
ambient temperature as to render it inappropriate to impose a penalty."
I read that as "we cannot confidently conclude that there was a breach
of the regulations."

*Had* there been such a breach found the appropriate penalty, on past
precedent, would have been disqualification. It would have been a
considerable stretch to apply the "fuel signature doesn't match the one
on file" case to reduce this to loss of Constructors points, but less
contrived than the actual scenario.

(I didn't want to see the WC outcome overturned either, but once again
the FIA backed itself into a corner and could find no solution other
than shooting itself in the foot.)

--
Mark Jackson - http :// www .alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
Like many people, I started blogging out of
an urgent need to procrastinate. - Alex Ross