View Full Version : Consistency?

16-11-2007, 20:59
Oooh I love the consistency of the ruling body of F1 - they've just announced (afaik, could've been a couple of days ago but I've only just seen the reports) that McLaren have lost the appeal over Williams and BMW using "cooler" fuel at the Brazil GP, and this therefore confirms Kimi Raikonnen as champion.

What's the betting that if that was McLaren that had used the "cooler" fuel they'd have been penalised?

When are the ruling body of F1 going to treat each team equally rather than being in the pocket of a few teams such as Ferrari and BMW, and decidedly against other teams such as McLaren?

Whilst I'm not bothered that Kimi Raikonnen is definitely the champ now I do feel that the ruling body have treated McLaren unfairly all season long, Ferrari started out with an illegal car and no-one really batted an eyelid relatively speaking, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if it was McLaren who'd done that they'd have been booted out of the season for the year! :mad:

And before anyone says it - I'm not a McLaren fanboy, I just don't like seeing one team being unfairly treated, one rule should apply to all, not just the teams who are currently "in favour".

That's my thoughts on it, what do the rest of the F1 fans here think?

16-11-2007, 21:46
Well Hamilton said he didn't want to win the championship in the courtroom, that was one of the main factors in their 'lost' appeal.

17-11-2007, 06:46
I think that, although I agree with you Raven, I think the result of the final appel was the only one really they could come up with, being as it was the end of the season, and the championship was decided.

It wouldnt have been fair for Lewis (irrespective of his wishes( to win hos forst F1 championship in the courtroom, and deny him the dcelebrations at the track, and tha moment at the circuit. Instead, all the interviews would be about the appeal, aand no the season of racing...

17-11-2007, 07:41
I think it wold have been perfectly fair for Lewis to become champion as a result of a disqualification. McLaren's lawyer presented 27 previous examples of this happening to the Court of Appeal.

However lets look at the Court of Appeal's Verdict.

There are two issues which arise from the verdict. The first which has already been touched upon is they have decided there is insufficient evidence to prove the temperature of the fuel was 15 degrees C below the ambient temperature on the day despite the FIA technical delegate's observations.

The second issue, which is not being covered in the media in any great detail, is the verdict that McLaren's appeal was inadmissible in the first place because they were not directly involved in the initial inquiry and did not protest the race result at the time. This is despite the fact Race Steward accepted the teams written appeal and the race result was listed as being subject to appeal.

McLaren are still seeking clarification on the ruling.

More info can be found here (http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=41307) and here (http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=41309).

I do not understand if McLaren's appeal was inadmissible why it went to the Court of Appeal or why it took two days for the decision to be announced. The spygate affair was decided in much less time than was taken for this hearing.