Arrows vs Ferrari Penalty - Help me understand the difference

Hugh Jarce · 25 Jul 2002, 12:13 (Ref:342360)

I know some of you guys are far more familiar and up to date with the intricacies of F1 rules (I'm getting there) but I was reading the news around the various sites and saw that the FIA may well punish Arrows with a 'RACE BAN' if they fail to compete properly in Germany.

OK - seems reasonable. I know that no one wants to kick a team when they are down but you can't have the fiasco of drivers simply giving up and getting changed while others are racing!

BUT ... how come Arrows could face a RACE BAN from the FIA for not trying, and in so doing bringing the sport into disrepute, and the FIA tell us that Ferrari, who were judged to have done the same thing, could only be FINED?

I'm sure I must be missing something - so help me see what and this thread can close.

Or, is this mega-hypocisy at work?

Red · 25 Jul 2002, 12:38 (Ref:342381)

Actually Ferrari were judged for the Podium antics more than team-orders thing and indeed Arrows did NOT try. Arrows' case was clear a non-combat situation whereas Ferrari beat all of others teams, almost lapping the entire field. It's not hypocrisy. Actually I expect a fine to be imposed to Arrows and that would hurt more... Probably that situation fits them most, they have 3 more weeks...

**Stephen Green** · 25 Jul 2002, 13:05 (Ref:342412)

Guess it all hinges on Morganm Grenfell now?

AndyF · 25 Jul 2002, 13:19 (Ref:342424)

I don't think there is anything in the rules that say Arrows have to try!! I am sure it is legal to drive slowly. That's why the 107% rule was brought in - I don't see what the FIA cna do about it?!

If a Minardi won in Germany, would that be bringing the sport into disrepute? Just the FIA trying to act big, and close down Arrows.

**Stephen Green** · 25 Jul 2002, 13:24 (Ref:342429)

As someone pointed out in another thread, the Cosworths they had for Magny Cours must be good for the German GP weekend, thus saving them some more cash in the short term.

Hugh Jarce · 25 Jul 2002, 13:29 (Ref:342432)

Quote:

Originally posted by Red
Actually Ferrari were judged for the Podium antics more than team-orders thing

Red - you are absolutely right, but most people made a stink about the RB 'not trying' bit and how bad it looked, and the FIA said as bad as it was, that they had no control over this and team orders.

So, if Ferrari were fined for the podium antics only - what case do Arrows have to answer.

Arrows team orders were don't qualify - we can't afford it. They brought F1 into disrepute just like Ferrari and yet are being threatened with a ban or fine for that offence - when it seems to me Ferrari 'got off' that charge 'scot-free'.

I still don't see it - may be I'm just being think!

**Stephen Green** · 25 Jul 2002, 13:35 (Ref:342437)

It's probably Eccleslug trying to get them to make a 'show' of it in Germany.

Red · 25 Jul 2002, 13:36 (Ref:342438)

Quote:

Originally posted by Hugh Jarce
So, if Ferrari were fined for the podium antics only - what case do Arrows have to answer.

Well, actually the rule says that each team must be able to bring two operational cars at every Event. 2 not so fast laps plus 4 in/out laps may not look as competing in the French GP. The penalty for such infringement is a hefty fine, not a race ban. However IF something has to be done, I believe that FIA would not want to hit Arrows even more...

PS: Rubens "did not try" in front of his teammate. Arrows "did not try" against 10 other teams, that's another difference.

f1manoz · 25 Jul 2002, 13:52 (Ref:342451)

I think the FIA should try and show some compassion here. It's rather obvious that Arrows are in a lot of difficulty at the moment, and at least they went to bother of at least showing up and put the car on the track.

So they didn't qualify??? Big deal, Yoong doesn't qualify for half the grand prix's anyway!!!

Jay · 25 Jul 2002, 13:53 (Ref:342453)

They both did not try...They both did not race. What difference does it make as to whether it was for the win or just to qualify? None that I can see...

lol...as we all know it comes down to money, which is why Ferrari will NEVER get a race ban. Ferrari is by far the most popular F1 team, and a GP without Ferrari would mean lost ticket sales, merchandise sales and F1 Digital Sales. An Arrows race ban would mean...20 cars trying to qualify.

That's the reality of it I'm afraid.

**Stephen Green** · 25 Jul 2002, 13:56 (Ref:342455)

In addition, if Arrows do not show up they forfeit a huge amount of money and possibly their eligability for the rest of the season. That's why they don't run during Friday free practice and only do three laps to 'qualify'

AndyF · 25 Jul 2002, 14:06 (Ref:342460)

But if Arrows go, will that be the end of F1 as we know it. That leaves just 20 cars, and if Minardi also dissapear sometime soon when cash runs out, that leaves just 16. There are also threats of engine mnaufactuer breakaways etc etc..... makes you wonder!

**Stephen Green** · 25 Jul 2002, 14:21 (Ref:342475)

"pooooooooooof" F1 just went up in a puff of smoke.

Hugh Jarce · 25 Jul 2002, 14:35 (Ref:342492)

Perhaps a suspended fine could be imposed. £1 now and £500,000 when they score their first point! - Seriously!!!

I ain't an Arrows fan - but I think they could do with some support right now and not threats. The FIA seems like the old school bully - happy to pick on the vulnerable but wants to stay chums with the 'heavy hitters'.

And, come to that, what must the drivers felt at Magny-Cours.

'OK Guys I want you to look like you're really pushing, grit your teeth for the press, but then slow up and miss the 107% - but try to look like you're trying or you may not get paid next week.'

No wonder they changed and hid.

Red · 25 Jul 2002, 14:38 (Ref:342495)

I like that! No suspended fine, but one symbolic pound would do the trick.

djb · 25 Jul 2002, 16:26 (Ref:342553)

I agree that a penalty is rather odd, but then again, I would think that considering their fairly good form in races, they were doing themselves more harm than good by not participating. Hell, look at HHF's qualifying at Silverstone, fantastic stuff!.

Now,I would like to ask a question concerning the non-qualifying.

Why do this? It seems to me that if you go to all the trouble of getting your team there, why not run the race? Sure, the motors will be burnt up, and there is always the risk of a chassis ruining crash, but things must be extremely tight for them not to be able to afford the "operating cost"-engines, brakes etc to run cars that are already there.
I didn't go through the threads immediatly after the race concerning Arrows, so if it was already discussed, sorry.

KA · 25 Jul 2002, 16:32 (Ref:342562)

One interesting thing I've recently read (Autosport possibly?) is a suggestion that Arrows took advice from Bernie before they made their non-qualifying attempt.....

I hope that Walkinshaw can sort this mess out- their performances on track at least haven't been too shabby at times this year (particularly compared with their fellow-Cosworth user...), so it would be a shame to see them go under in this manner

Autosport also suggested that TW may be taking legal action against Morgan Grenfell to avoid a repeat performance in Germany

kristof14 · 25 Jul 2002, 23:14 (Ref:342943)

Quote:

Originally posted by djb
I agree that a penalty is rather odd, but then again, I would think that considering their fairly good form in races, they were doing themselves more harm than good by not participating. Hell, look at HHF's qualifying at Silverstone, fantastic stuff!.

Now,I would like to ask a question concerning the non-qualifying.

Why do this? It seems to me that if you go to all the trouble of getting your team there, why not run the race? Sure, the motors will be burnt up, and there is always the risk of a chassis ruining crash, but things must be extremely tight for them not to be able to afford the "operating cost"-engines, brakes etc to run cars that are already there.
I didn't go through the threads immediatly after the race concerning Arrows, so if it was already discussed, sorry.

by completing one qualifying lap but not going fast enough to qualify Arrows met the criteria of competing in the Grand Prix Weekend whilst not having compete in the race, therefore saving hundreds of thousands of pounds. If they had competed they may not have even turned up at Hockenheim due to lack of money.

Hamness · 26 Jul 2002, 00:16 (Ref:343001)

I can't really blame Tom for doing what he did, but if I
had saved all my money to go to that GP & 19 cars started
(Fisi had a good reason but Eddie wanted the car to run)I would feel seriously short changed, especially if a first corner contretemps had taken a few more out & we would then have been treated to the rest of the field cruising to points finishes. I hope the powers that be sort out this ridiculous mess soon & give the punters some racing (Ferrari please note) and not some glorified multinational, 2 x 2 procession!

Jukebox · 26 Jul 2002, 02:34 (Ref:343073)

Quote:

Originally posted by f1manoz
So they didn't qualify??? Big deal, Yoong doesn't qualify for half the grand prix's anyway!!!

Get real, he didn't qualify for only 2 races this season.

Valve Bounce · 26 Jul 2002, 03:38 (Ref:343100)

I have a;rady posted elsewhere that it all hinged on the word participation because if the team's merely turning up is rulesd as not fitting the meaning of participation, then Arrows are in serious trouble. It can be ruled that they missed a race while insolvent, in which case they are out of F1. Or they can be fined US$300,000 for failure to turn up (i.e to participate), and they also then miss out on the TV money for travelling expenses. All these negative achievements will then mak it more difficult for Walkinshaw to settle with Morgan Grenfell and sell the team simultaneously.
This has nothing to do with Ferrari's team orders inAustria. Basically, Arrows are not bringing the sport into disrrepute - Arrows are desperate, and the only ruling here is whether they miss a race with this type of non race intent.

Valve

Jack racer · 26 Jul 2002, 12:42 (Ref:343346)

I would hate to see arrows gone they have been around a few years now Just guessing but would it be late 70s early 80s.

djb · 26 Jul 2002, 13:24 (Ref:343383)

My point and question is, how can running your cars during a GP be that much more expensive than showing up, covering travel costs, employee costs etc. I have no knowledge of the money side of the business, but would they really save that much money-----I guess in the end, their actions are my answer.

f1manoz · 26 Jul 2002, 13:26 (Ref:343385)

Quote:

Originally posted by Jukebox
Get real, he didn't qualify for only 2 races this season.

Hmm, perhaps just for Juke I should have added [sarcasm] brackets.......

Robert · 26 Jul 2002, 18:43 (Ref:343565)

Robert

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Can someone help me understand...	russ250575	Sportscar & GT Racing	20	28 Nov 2005 12:21
Some people will never understand...	Go_For_Pole	National & International Single Seaters	25	17 Aug 2005 16:10
what's the difference between MS' penalty at Malaysia and JPM's at INDY?	CVT	Formula One	8	30 Sep 2003 09:18
Only a Ford will Understand	Alan Jones	Australasian Touring Cars.	39	13 May 2003 10:02