McLaren's Appeal Rejected

[DaveW]

From Autosport.com:

McLaren's appeal rejected

By Biranit Goren
Friday, November 16th 2007, 19:44 GMT


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.
After a day of deliberation, having heard all sides yesterday in a London location, the ICA said the results of the Interlagos race will remain unchanged, confirming Ferrari's Kimi Raikkonen as the 2007 world champion.
The governing body said in a statement the case was rejected because McLaren's appeal is inadmissable.

[andyllc]

I just read that and was about to post that. Definitely interesting.
Anyone care to have thoughts on the appeal or on their verdict and reasoning (ie, being inadmissable)

I think that there are more politics in the FIA than there are in the US Gov't. It is interesting because colder fuel is definitely an advantage, that has been known for years. Had this been the 3rd race of the year instead of the last, would the teams have been dq'd? I probably think so. Should it matter which event it happens, no....

On the flip side, there has been talk about the FIA or whomever not being able to acurately determine the temp of the fuel and if that is the case then why is it a rule and the FIA obviously needs to step it up in the future so they can police it more effectively.

[mmi16]

Personally, I think the FIA should disband itself for conduct detrimental to the sport.

[Stan Clayton]

What if McLaren sues in EU civil court? Link

[PaulT]

What I read is that it is not possible to protest the steward's decision (which is the type of protest that McLaren submitted). Instead they should have protested the illegal fuel temp. So they messed up their protest, it gets dismissed and maybe,just maybe the 2007 F1 season will end before 2008 starts!

Paul

[Roland V. Johnson]

I was curious to see how the FIA would avoid their responsability, and give Ferrari what it wanted. The answer is to avoid looking at 20+ years of precedent if it doesn't fit the proper politics.

[Allen_W]

What I read is that it is not possible to protest the steward's decision (which is the type of protest that McLaren submitted). Instead they should have protested the illegal fuel temp. So they messed up their protest, it gets dismissed and maybe,just maybe the 2007 F1 season will end before 2008 starts!

Paul

Wow. Maybe they ran out of money from the Big Mother Fine and couldn't afford to hire anyone to help them craft a correct appeal. Either that or the FIA just changed the process to get the result they wanted. That said, I think Kimi deserved said championship - but, to me, the whole thing this season is highly tainted.

[andyllc]

man that has to be the bonehead move of the year to appeal the wrong thing, especially when the world championship is on the line

[dereklola]

- - - when - - -
- tires were skinny
- drivers were wide
- spying involved a couple of beers
- no one knew or cared what the fuel temp was
- lawyers didn't get involved
- and the FIA didn't bring the sport into disrepute.
- - - (thx mmi16 you beat me to it).

On a somewhat related subject if other open wheel formulae choose ground effect to facilitate overtaking why is it still banned in F1? I've been wondering this for years now.

[dereklola]

What I read is that it is not possible to protest the steward's decision

I don't think that's true - any team can lodge an appeal against a steward's decision although only teams involved can make a protest on material facts.

[PaulT]

I got this from the F1-Live site

Today's 'cool fuel' appeal lodged by McLaren could be dismissed on a technicality, according to speculation.

It is expected that lawyers for BMW Sauber and Williams Toyota, the two teams faced with the prospect of exclusion or other penalties for allegedly using colder fuel than is allowed at Interlagos last month, will argue that Ron Dennis' outfit did not follow the proper appeal procedures.

According to reports, McLaren's main problem is that it did not actually protest the outcome of the title finale, relying instead on merely taking issue with the stewards' ruling.

Bernie Ecclestone told The Times that he hoped the BMW and Williams lawyers are proved correct. "That would be exactly right," he agreed.


Here's the link
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headline...15092228.shtml

Of course I have no way of verifying this...

Paul

[Ted Idlof]

Excuse me, but I'm going to stop laughing now just long enough to throw up.

[smsazzy]

As much as I really wanted Louis to win the championship, I cannot imagine feeling "right" about him winning it in a court room appeal.......

Congrats Kimi!

Loius - win the thing next year! (If you can without Fred's data)

[Comp89]

I cannot imagine feeling "right" about him winning it in a court room appeal.......

Congrats Kimi!

I agree... Louis Hamilton did not loose the championship at the last week-end or in court/appeal.
He / Not the team) lost it the week-end before when he parked it in the sand trap... Yes the team should have called him in earlier but he is behind the wheel and should have been a more careful knowing the conditions and his position in the championship......

I like the kid but Kimi deserves the championship....

[Allen_W]

I like the kid but Kimi deserves the championship....

Exactly. McLaren melted down, and with the team, Lewis wilted too. Maybe next year. If McLaren pulls its act back together.

The two lessons I take from this season are (1) if you hire Fred Alonso, you'd better make him the clear #1 driver and go all out to favor him and (2) be careful not to get caught if you steal data . . . but it's ok to run with illegal fuel temps. ;-)

[Roland V. Johnson]

It seems to be ok to steal data,if you are Toyota or Renault.

[Charles Warner]

There was no way to accurately determine the temperature of the fuel "as it went into the car." The only measurement was the temperature of the fuel in the refueling tank itself. The temps were 2 degrees C colder in the tank than allowed for the fuel as it enters the car (ambient minus 10C I believe.) The presumption is that the high flow fuel delivery system creates enough of a temperature delta to increase the fuel temp by at least 2 degrees C, thereby creating the possibility that the fuel actually could have been legal. As there is no data gathering of the fuel as it hits the car the reg is moot.

[Allen_W]

There was no way to accurately determine the temperature of the fuel "as it went into the car." The only measurement was the temperature of the fuel in the refueling tank itself. The temps were 2 degrees C colder in the tank than allowed for the fuel as it enters the car (ambient minus 10C I believe.) The presumption is that the high flow fuel delivery system creates enough of a temperature delta to increase the fuel temp by at least 2 degrees C, thereby creating the possibility that the fuel actually could have been legal. As there is no data gathering of the fuel as it hits the car the reg is moot.

Dunno. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the decision made by the FIA.

According to Speed Channel, which has printed the FIA decision, no ruling was made on the merits, only on McLaren's standing and appeal procedures.

http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/41681/

[Charles Warner]

Dunno. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the decision made by the FIA.

According to Speed Channel, which has printed the FIA decision, no ruling was made on the merits, only on McLaren's standing and appeal procedures.

This explanation was given by Mike Gascoyne of Spyker.

[cooleyjb]

So if the temps they collect from the fuel rigs don't really mean anything why do they bother taking the temps of the fuel from that location? Not that it matters since the ruling was based on when and how the protest was lodged.

Makes me wonder why it took so long for a ruling to come down that said they dind't protest in the correct way and therefore FIA didn't care what Mclaren had to say.

[Allen_W]

So if the temps they collect from the fuel rigs don't really mean anything why do they bother taking the temps of the fuel from that location?

Joe,

Because it's the FIA, the auto racing version of the WWF?

[Allen_W]

This explanation was given by Mike Gascoyne of Spyker.

What Gascoyne says might make sense, but I still don't follow its relevance to either the decision or the technical result that prompted McLaren's protest:

From 10/21/07, on F1i.com: "A stewards' inquiry following the Brazilian grand prix has put a question-mark alongside Kimi Raikkonen's world championship triumph on Sunday. It has emerged from Interlagos that investigations are currently taking place regarding the BMW-Sauber and Williams teams, after fuel samples from the cars failed post-race scrutineering checks."

Unless the 10/21 report is erroneous, the fuel samples in question weren't taken from the fuel rig; they were taken directly from the BMW and Williams cars as part of the post-race scrutineering, presumably to check compliance with sporting regulation 6.5.4, which in any event is silent about fuel in the rig, speaking only to the permissible temp in the car.

"6.5.4 No fuel on board the car may be more than ten degrees centigrade below ambient temperature."

Not to second guess Gascoyne, for sure, but his explanation seems beside the point, irrelevant to the final decision of the FIA as well as to the facts of the lead-up to the protest. It seems that the fuel in the cars after the race measured outside the permissible limit, but the protest wasn't allowed due to procedural issues.

And none of this changes the fact that McLaren and Hamilton, after a totally fraught season, came a bit unglued in the final weeks allowing Kimi to take the WDC.

[Charles Warner]

Not to second guess Gascoyne, for sure, but his explanation seems beside the point, irrelevant to the final decision of the FIA as well as to the facts of the lead-up to the protest. It seems that the fuel in the cars after the race measured outside the permissible limit, but the protest wasn't allowed due to procedural issues.

According to Gascoyne the temperatures in question are taken from the refueling rig. I tend to believe him, given his position in the team.

6.5.4 No fuel on board the car may be more than ten degrees centigrade below ambient temperature.

This is why the temps from the rig are irrelevant. Apparently there is no established method of checking and enforcing this rule.

Why the protest was disallowed is another matter.

[Roger Eade]

I think one of the tricks in NAZcar, was to run fuel lines through a coil in dry ice, Smokey may have tried it, he did just about everything else!
Roger

[Allen_W]

According to Gascoyne the temperatures in question are taken from the refueling rig. I tend to believe him, given his position in the team. This is why the temps from the rig are irrelevant. Apparently there is no established method of checking and enforcing this rule.

That would mean that the article from F1i.com was wrong . . . and bring us back to Joe's question . . . why measure from the rig if the reg addresses in-car temperature?

P.S. - A report from the race weekend, on Formula 1 Live gives a different reason. It says that the scrutineers took samples from the cars, not the rig, but that the stewards could not establish the base ambient temperature, which seems odd.

"a report from the FIA technical delegate that stated temperatures of fuel samples taken from both cars of each team were outside the regulations. . . . A statement issued by the stewards at Interlagos on Sunday night said that they could not say for certain that the fuel in the cars was below the 10-degree maximum limit allowed in the regulations. The stewards said that there was a discrepancy between the Formula One Management temperature of 37 degrees and that provided by the FIA and team-contracted meteorologists Meteo France, which was a few degrees cooler."