Melbourne scrutineering

[manwell]

So when will we first hear about whether the Torro Rosso and Super Auguri cars pass scrutineering?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by manwell

So when will we first hear about whether the Torro Rosso and Super Auguri cars pass scrutineering?

Unless either team has made some technical blunder within the technical regs,I don't see why either team should have a problem passing scrutineering.These regulations (technical and sporting) do require that teams understand all the requirements of competing in the championship.

Entry form:
A clause states: "We confirm that we have read and understand the provisions of the International Sporting Code, the 1998 Concorde Agreement (including its Schedules), the 2007 Formula One Technical Regulations and the 2007 Formula One Sporting Regulations."

[manwell]

Have i missed something?

I was under the impression that Torro Rosso and Super Aguri believed there new cars, although not designed by them, would be permitted.

Spyker and Willams on the other didnt believe that Torro Rosso and Super Aguri cars were legal because they didnt design and construct their own cars.

So unless it has been sorted out behind the scenes i thought we were going to expect a legal challence from Williams/Spyker.

[strider]

According to this, nothing will happen until after qualifying.

[SD 328I]

No, scrutineering is for technical faults in the setup of the cars, it has nothing to do with regulations regarding if the cars are legal based on who built them, or how those rules are interpreted.

It has already been stated by several F1 news sources that there will be no legal challenge by Williams or Spyker in Australia.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by strider

According to this, nothing will happen until after qualifying.

This will give Toyota a chance to join in any protest.

[Fletcher]

Originally Posted by manwell

Have i missed something?

I was under the impression that Torro Rosso and Super Aguri believed there new cars, although not designed by them, would be permitted.

Spyker and Willams on the other didnt believe that Torro Rosso and Super Aguri cars were legal because they didnt design and construct their own cars.

So unless it has been sorted out behind the scenes i thought we were going to expect a legal challence from Williams/Spyker.

The legal challenge hasn't got much to do with the scrutineering, because the design-your-own-car-clause isn't mentioned in the technical rules, but in the concorde agreement.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by SD 328I

It has already been stated by several F1 news sources that there will be no legal challenge by Williams or Spyker in Australia.

It will make more sense if they wait until they get back to Europe,when (hopefully) their lawyers will be awake.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Entry form:
A clause states: "We confirm that we have read and understand the provisions of the International Sporting Code, the 1998 Concorde Agreement (including its Schedules), the 2007 Formula One Technical Regulations and the 2007 Formula One Sporting Regulations."

This suggests to me that if you are not complying with the concorde agreement you are also in breech of the FIA regulations.But I could be wrong!

[Glen]

As things stand right now it will be Honda challenging the legality of the SA/Honda!

[Gore]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

This suggests to me that if you are not complying with the concorde agreement you are also in breech of the FIA regulations.But I could be wrong!

I'm sure a good lawyer could make the argument that "read and understood" doesn't necessarily imply "complied with"...

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Gore

I'm sure a good lawyer could make the argument that "read and understood" doesn't necessarily imply "complied with"...

"We have read and understand,but have completely ignored anyway", isn't something I'd want to go to court with.

[Hugh Jarce]

But, surely on a legal basis if you are going to challenge it has to be at the inital moment. If you ignore the matter when it first happens, aren't you seen as legally accepting the issue?

In a funny way I hope there is a kerfuffle - it wouldn't be Melbourbe if someone didn't get grumpy over some rule or innovation.

I think a legal suit should be taken on grounds of 'poor taste livery' for more than one team - especially for us folks having to watch in the very wee hours whist eating a bacon sarnie and drinking a beer!