Stoddies Traction Control Threat.

[Red]

Williams *WAS* a privateer, but in 70s. Not now.

PS: TC is not expensive, actually is very cheap. He only uses that as a protest. He does not need TC, he needs cheap engine.

[John Abrahamsen]

TC is expensive if you want it to be good Red. Minardi didnt even have launch control before the end of 2003! And when they did have it, it caused big problems for the teams traction control (drive without).

Williams is a privateer team. Why do you think that Frank doesnt want BMW to have a greater influence on the chassis? Even if it is manufacturer backed, Williams are still a privateer team. Do you see cars with Williams badges running in the streets? Williams F1 are a F1 team and nothing more. BMW delivers engines and provide backing, but does not own the team. Therefore (IMHO) it`s not a manufacturer team.

[Kirk]

Originally posted by Super Tourer
The point I was making is that if the FIA want to make rules, then they should apply them, not trade off one part of the rule book against concessions to factory teams in order to get their approval.

That says it all. Until FIA shows some backbone, fiascos such as this, will prevail... and teams will continue to seek loopholes and cheat outright, knowing full well that if caught a slap on the wrist may occur. Don't get me going!!

As I've said before RULES (and if necessary the spirit of each rule) MUST BE ETCHED IN STONE WITH SEVERE PENALTIES ATTACHED FOR BREACH. NO EXCEPTIONS!

[bosch!]

A deals a deal. Either all parties fulfil their part of the bargin (contract) or the contract is null and void, or at least voidable (can be set asside if desired by either party) in which case the new agreement ie traction controls reintroduction - it was banned by the FIA - will not / does not (should not) come into effect.

According to contract law stodard has every right to withdraw his agreement to the retention of traction control as he has not recieved the promissed "affordable" race engine. It may also be possible however for both sides to argue that the wording was to vauge to create a contract in the first place

Of course F1 doesnt always take account of something as frivilious as contract law anyway.

(WOW a contract law flashback see, I wasnt in the pub every Wednesday afternoon)