Williams & Toyota DQ'd

[z2252314]

Originally posted by thebear
Similarly the Williams was properly sized but 30mm away from the specified position.

30mm is huge in F1 terms. I mean, thats enought to visually see without the use of fancy measuring devices. Anyway, this is part of what James Allen had to say in his race summary

Taken from itv-f1.com
Well I said in the commentary that Williams' brake ducts were as big as the Mersey tunnel but I didn’t think it was because they were illegal!

Rival engineers who observed them on the grid said that they were amazed by what they saw and felt that they had to protest them. They also said that they looked like a bit of a ‘lash up’ - meaning a hastily-made solution to big brake wear problems.

If rival teams could spot the oversized ducts then why couldn't the Williams engineers who work millimeters away from the car I think its safe to conclude that Sam new the ducts were illegal, but felt it was worth the chance as the cars would have definately failed otherwise......

[Kicking-back]

If James Allen said that last bit lets hope Sam Michael sues him.

Maybe that would finally see ITV sack him!

[Kicking-back]

Just read it and found James Allen didn't say the last bit, so it's z2252314 Sam Michael will have to take issue with.

[z2252314]

Originally posted by Kicking-back
If James Allen said that last bit lets hope Sam Michael sues him.

Maybe that would finally see ITV sack him!

Lets hope Sam Michael keeps his job for the rest of the season.

[z2252314]

Originally posted by Kicking-back
Just read it and found James Allen didn't say the last bit, so it's z2252314 Sam Michael will have to take issue with.

I might have to sue you KB for slander.

Go to the ITV website, he wrote exactly what I quoted. Why dont you point out any differences....you fool!!!!!!

[Kicking-back]

You have edited your post since I made my post, in order to make it clear what you were quoting.

Originally your final paragraph looked like you were attributing it to James Allen.


I'll say again - unless you can prove Williams deliberately raced an illegal car, knowing it was illegal, then it is libellous to accuse them of it.

[z2252314]

Originally posted by Kicking-back

I'll say again - unless you can prove Williams deliberately raced an illegal car, knowing it was illegal, then it is libellous to accuse them of it.

Sorry KB, but where there's smoke there's fire.

Sam Michael has already lied by saying there was no performance advantage.... very sly indeed.

As for my accusations, I'll stop them when Sam decides to explain why both his cars had brake ducts outside the regulations by more than 3cm!!!!

[Kicking-back]

If you make an accusation you need to be able to prove it!

[Adam43]

Originally posted by z2252314
Sorry KB, but where there's smoke there's fire.

Both literally and metaphorically most instances of smoke are independent of fire.

Originally posted by z2252314
Sam Michael has already lied by saying there was no performance advantage.... very sly indeed.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

I think he means in terms of lap times, in which case he is probably right.

Originally posted by z2252314
As for my accusations, I'll stop them when Sam decides to explain why both his cars had brake ducts outside the regulations by more than 3cm!!!!

If you have missed a regulation, surely it would be expected it is done on both cars. :confused:

Admittedly I'm not up to speed fully on this incident. It seems both Williams and Toyota messed up on this (to a different degrees). I'll be interested to see how Toyota's 'tolerance' argument goes. It seems clear cut with Williams and the DSQ is probably fair. To question their integrity on the strength of this is harsh and unfair. Should everyone be questioned so decisively when they stepped out of line by an inch?

It strikes me that this thread generally (and not you personally zed) is the same old BS without actually discussing the (interesting) situation. It is like when Ferrari get accused of something (rightly or wrongly). With most of the same stuff being thrown both ways and a perfect example of Wrex's if the names were reveresed. If we are using metaphors then what about: two wrongs don't make a right.

[Gt_R]

K-B, honestly, i think nobody would be as generous if the team involved is Ferrari.

But firstly, don't you think that the whole situation is just too coincidental?

Williams were struggling with brake issues at Friday practice (not to mention poor performance in previous two races), yet comes qualifying and the race, the issues just disappeared - and the two cars go on to secure their best result to date.

Ferrari were properly hammered for just barely exceeding the tolerance, yet in Williams case, they've exceeded it by an almost laughable sum...if it's an honest mistake, the guy who made it must be a rookie.

And its not as if the part that infringes the rule is insignificant.. Canada requires huge aero-efficency and great brake abilities...and presto - the part involved is just the part. And right..i would expect Sam to say "no performance gain", he can't possibly go on to say "Ah..the part earned us half a second.."..it's a simple case of damage control.

And when another team makes the SAME "honest" mistake at the same place, you have to wonder, if they did it with the hope that it would be overlooked.

Did Williams suddenly just produce two brake ducts which exceed the tolerance limit? And so luckily fitted them onto BOTH race cars? As much as it may be slightly possible, it's really hard to believe.

I'm sure that production of such ducts comes in batches, and that the teams would have a sufficiently proficient QC team to check.. and even if it's the fitting of the part that is off, it's still too coincidental to make the same "mistake" for both cars.

And if they are innocent, why don't they dare bring the issue up with FIA?

As for Toyota...bahh..can't be bothered...not surprised they are caught

[Peter Mallett]

This is all very well but was the measuring device used by the scrutineer the correct one? I think we should be told.

[Gt_R]

Anyway, i'm refraining from the use of word "cheat" because it's a completely more serious level - and i don't think it's too harsh a word.

[Kicking-back]

I'd have the same stance on this if it was Ferrari involved.

I'm not a fan of Williams or Toyota, but I will continue to believe it was an honest mistake.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Gt_R
K-B, honestly, i think nobody would be as generous if the team involved is Ferrari.

So that means it is just as bad when others do it against another team.

Originally posted by Gt_R

Anyway, i'm refraining from the use of word "cheat" because it's a completely more serious level - and i don't think it's too harsh a word.

So, after that post, you refrained from using the word.

[z2252314]

FACTS:-

Williams were having brake problems immediately prior to the Canadian GP.

The canadian GP is a circuit of heavy braking, making brakes, and their conservation, critical for success.

Williams were uncompetitive in the last couple of Grand Prix...being outmatched by both Renault and BAR and miles off Ferrari.

Rival teams and even commentators notice the suprisingly large brake ducts being used by Williams immediately prior to race start.

Williams perform remarkably well throughout the race, with Ralf pushing Michael all the way up to the finish.

Williams fail post race scrutinerring checks along with Toyota. The Toyota Technical director attempts a protest which fails to fall within the mandated time.

Sam Michael readily accepts the penalty and makes no attempt to explain how the irregularity came about.

It is discovered that Williams were 30mm outside the mandated rules.

Still, Sam Michael has refused to provide an explanation for his cars being 3cm outside the legal limits.

MY THEORY
Sam knew, or should have known about the infringement prior to the race and avoided taking any action.

ALTERNATIVE THEORY
Brake ducts were modified for the Canadian GP and happened to be more than an inch (3cm) outside the legal limits. Engineers made an honest oversight and this extra 3cm gave Williams no performance advantage. It is just a mere coincedence that two teams make the same engineering mistake, on the same part, at the same circuit, on both cars, on a part critical for success at canada.


My comments have been based on rational reasoning from the facts of the event. What facts are there to defend Sam??

[Kicking-back]

It's not a case of defending Sam.

The point is, legally, if you want to accuse him of something, you need to be able to prove it is true.

[Adam43]

FACTS! None of your facts (true or not) factually prove that Sam was trying to blatently cheat. It takes a leap of faith to get from one to the other. In proving intent, it would never stand up in a court of law.

It is quite likely that the 3cm would be replicated on all the parts made not just one, so I fail to see why the on both cars fact proves that it was caused by a desire to cheat.

Yes the Williams had brake issues (Canada being very hard on brakes) so they tried to impove their brakes. If they went too far by mistake is not at all FACT that it was through a desire to cheat.

It seems to me that this is a little like the clarification over the rear wing rules we saw earlier this season over BAR and Williams. The difference is that this was noticed (and clarified to Williams/Toyota) over a race weekend.

Lets get these cliches and sayings really going:
At the end of the day Williams ran a car outside the regulations and it was DSQ. The fair result, Williams (and Toyota) must be kicking themselves.

[Gt_R]

Dammit..what was i saying in my last post..

haha..brain fade..but this is what i wanna say
"Anyway, i'm refraining from the use of word "cheat" because i think it's too harsh a word to use...a different level from William's error"

[Gt_R]

I agree with AA, punishment is fair, but i think it's not fair for Ralf/JPM to be stripped off their points.

Anyway, it won't matter comes Indy.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Gt_R
"Anyway, i'm refraining from the use of word "cheat" because i think it's too harsh a word to use...a different level from William's error"

sorry, I get it now!

[Spudgun]

Bloomin' 'eck! This has blown up like nothing was done about it!

Williams were caught with a technical infringement and paid a hefty price. I personally don't think it was an intention to cheat. I think they just wanted to get some extra cooling to the brakes to make the brakes last, but just overstepped the mark by accident.

Now, thinking about this with a bit of common sense, if you were intending to to cheat on purpose, would you choose a component that is visible and relatively prominent to do so???

Either it was a mistake or the head of Williams' Cheating Dept is called Cletus.

Now if an infringement was made in a more concealed area (mechanical or electronic) then things could be construed as a bit different.

[Kicking-back]

Thanks, Spudgun, some sanity prevails!

[z2252314]

I would call my posts opinions rather than accusations, and considering were not in a court of law, we should relax on requirement of proof.....I dont think your gonna get that on any F1 forum.

However, if you are unhappy with my line of reasoning which has led to my opinion then please feel free to criticise. If you cant fault my reasoning, then my opinions would seem pretty valid

REASONING:-

* A technical director should be aware of any major changes to a car which could be critical to the success/failure of a Grand Prix.

* A technical director should ensure that such changes comply with FIA regulations.

* The changes made to the Williams car were significant enough to catch the prying eyes of rival engineers, so it would be fair to assume that Sam would have known of the changes.

* A technical director should be well versed in all areas regarding rules and specifications mandated by the FIA.

* If Sam is aware of the rules, and knew of the changes made to the ducts, then he should have known the modified brake ducts were illegal.

* There was significant pressure on Williams to climb out of their slump. A double failure would have been disastrous for a team desperately needing to bounce back.

* Post race inspections reveal the brake ducts are 3cm outside legal regulations.

* As Technical director, Sam Michael must shoulder the blame for this infringement.

[Kicking-back]

The matter of blame is irrelevant.

Bad management tends to arise from a blame culture.

I'd prefer to say the team need to make sure it doesn't happen again, and move forward stronger for the experience.

[Spudgun]

Z, What is your infatuation with giving Sam Michael a kicking? What's the point?

They ballsed up and paid the price.