F2007 was illegal - Stepney

[langwadt]

since this 'news' broke cover just now because of the hearing in the 'ecclestone bribery' hearing, with bernie admitting he indeed payed quite some $$ to team owners back then [ Eddie Jordan, Alain Prost and more have admitted been payed to their personal bank accounts, not the team, to accept the concorde agreement ], it's not hard to connect the dots payment has been made to 'keep the mouth shut' or in Mcl's case that would mean, don't protest officially against the Illegality of the '07 Ferrari with which kimi won the GP.

Interestingly, that thus means, that, had Ferrari been disqualified from these results - then the end result would have been Lewis Hamilton being the F1 World Champion of 2007, instead of missing out with just 1 point, on his debut year.

What i'd like to know is, is it still NOW possible to take action against the 2007 championship over this cause? I'm thinking out loud regarding the 'crashgate' scandal for example, even though I don't recall anything being altered about the actual championship results of '08, in the end, several people involved were banned or restricted as a result. Could any legal action be taken against the Ferrari team regarding this because of the satement Stepney made? - Just curious.

you never know, look at tour de france, Lance (and almost everyone else in that era) did stuff the was against the letter of the rules, but passed the tests, yet years later they take away his victories

I'm sure F1 designers are more concerned about passing the test, than they are about following the letter of the regulations
imagine if every time some one let out that they had stuff five years ago that was probably illegal but passed test we had to change the standings for that year

[Cold Fussion]

How could they be punished retrospectively if their car was deemed legal at the time?

[Jersey Tom]

A race car bending / stretching / breaking the rules... breaking news...

[Manoah2u]

How could they be punished retrospectively if their car was deemed legal at the time?

but the FIA declared the car indeed illegal at the time, after McLaren asked for clarifications from the FIA.
The rear-wing was declared legal, but the floor wasn't. Team principal Ron Dennis chose not to protest
the result of the Australian Grand prix, won by Ferrari - even though the FIA declared the floor illegal.
So, oddly - nothing was done!

They could be retrospectively punished the same way Briatore, Pat Symonds, etc were 'punished' retrospectively, even
though at the time, there was no obvious signals they should have had a penalty at the race itself [disqualification, f.e.]

What KIND of retrospective punishment could be applied, is what i'd concider to be interesting - even though it's NEVER
going to happen.

it does show however, just how deep and dirty the politics in F1 are. REALLY, REALLY dirty. If there's big money...........

[Just_a_fan]

The only punishment that could be applied retrospectively is the removal of Ferrari from the championship. Which means Hamilton would be only the second rookie to win the title (Farina being the first ever winner of an F1 title and thus, by definition, an F1 rookie).

That would remove Kimi's position as an F1 champion when discussing fees. He'd be just another "also ran" and Ferrari would be spending a lot less next year...

[Cold Fussion]

How could they be punished retrospectively if their car was deemed legal at the time?

but the FIA declared the car indeed illegal at the time, after McLaren asked for clarifications from the FIA.
The rear-wing was declared legal, but the floor wasn't. Team principal Ron Dennis chose not to protest
the result of the Australian Grand prix, won by Ferrari - even though the FIA declared the floor illegal.
So, oddly - nothing was done!

I don't see how any of that changes anything. The situation was well understood at the time and the results were allowed to stand. The car was subsequently allowed to run at the following races, so what grounds do the FIA have for retroactive disqualification?

[timbo]

but the FIA declared the car indeed illegal at the time, after McLaren asked for clarifications from the FIA.
The rear-wing was declared legal, but the floor wasn't. Team principal Ron Dennis chose not to protest
the result of the Australian Grand prix, won by Ferrari - even though the FIA declared the floor illegal.
So, oddly - nothing was done!

FIA altered test procedures to prevent exploits, doesn't equal to declaring something illegal.

[mep]

Oh boys, you could take every current car and find something that makes them illegal.
That’s what is called exploiting the rules. It is an essential part of the game. That’s what keeps us engineers busy in our daily work. And it keeps the fans fighting about which car is the most illegal. Yet, that discussion is so pointless. In a strict view they are all illegal. But in reality they are all legal. The rules are deliberately written in a way to allow for freedom of interpretation. It is not up to some fans to define what is legal or not. Charlie Whiting is the only instance to do so. If one team finds a new trick, it does not mean that it is a cheater. It only means they were smarter than the others. At some point the other teams will notice it and whine first about legality until they have learnt the trick and are able to reproduce it on their car. This is the game of F1.

Don’t come up now with stupid things like Kimi did not won the title, and Hamilton has 1 more title. This is absurd. Rather discuss what kind of character Stepney is. Obviously something at Ferrari must have changed not in his favour. First he spies them, then gives the information their main competitor McLaren. He probably also sabotaged the Ferrari cars. What happened to that case where they found some powder in the Ferrari tanks in Monaco? I suspect him of that. I also suspect him of sabotage on Schumacher’s car in Japan and Brazil 2006. Then years later he comes up with a story saying that Ferrari, his former employer, is a cheater. I say that Stepney is the worst of a character. People do better when they don’t listen too much to what he says but more to what he does.

[timbo]

Don’t come up now with stupid things like Kimi did not won the title, and Hamilton has 1 more title. This is absurd. Rather discuss what kind of character Stepney is. Obviously something at Ferrari must have changed not in his favour. First he spies them, then gives the information their main competitor McLaren. He probably also sabotaged the Ferrari cars. What happened to that case where they found some powder in the Ferrari tanks in Monaco? I suspect him of that. I also suspect him of sabotage on Schumacher’s car in Japan and Brazil 2006. Then years later he comes up with a story saying that Ferrari, his former employer, is a cheater. I say that Stepney is the worst of a character. People do better when they don’t listen too much to what he says but more to what he does.

I think the fallout happened when he wasn't promoted higher up the ranks as he expected.
The powder in tanks was indeed suspected of Stepney.
However, I think it's too much to suspect sabotage in 2006. Things like that just happen, e.g. Hungary 2008.

[Moxie]

Very tricky business; the writing and enforcement of rules. F1 isn't spec racing, nor should it be, and the rules are intended to allow for diverse engineering solutions to the conditions presented. Without the rules and the teams willingness to push the limits we would have never seen the innovations of flexible carbon fiber layouts, double diffusers, coanda exhaust and exhaust blown diffusers, or front to rear linked suspensions. The whole point is to push the limits of the rules to the extreme. Personally, I like rules and think they need to be followed, however I see a big difference between intentionally crashing a car to force a safety car deployment, and a case where the engineering rules have been pushed a little too far.

It would absolutely ruin the sport if the FIA were to retroactively enforce rules that fall in the grey area of extreme engineering. I think that it is perfectly fair for the FIA to decide that an engineering innovation violates the intention of the rule, even if that decision occurs mid-season. The consequences need not involve retroactive stripping of wins or such nonsense. The "punishment" is that such innovation is no longer permitted, and the team will just have to engineer a new solution.

To this point I bring up the mid-season FIA ruling on engine mapping and exhaust blown diffusers a couple of seasons ago. Frankly, the FIA rolled over, when Red Bull and Renault complained that their cars were designed to use that technology. The FIA should have stood firm, and told Renault and Red Bull "You engineered yourselves into this rules violation, you can engineer your way out."

[aral]

"You engineered yourselves into this rules violation, you can engineer your way out."

But it was NOT a "rules violation"! It was clever interpretation of the rules, just as F-duct was, just as coanda exhaust is etc. Do you not want innovation in the premier motorsport series?

[Moxie]

But it was NOT a "rules violation"! It was clever interpretation of the rules, just as F-duct was, just as coanda exhaust is etc. Do you not want innovation in the premier motorsport series?

This is my point exactly. The line between "rules violation" and "clever interpretation of the rules is, grey,fuzzy, translucent and very thin. I admit that I am not technologically knowledgeable enough to interpret the nuances of engineering rules and regulations. The FIA however is the governing body, and they write and interpret the rules. It is up the their discretion to determine that the double diffuser was a clever interpretation of the rules, and that the use engine mapping and the exhaust blown diffuser constituted a moveable aerodynamic device and therefore was a violation of the rules.

In regards to the enforcement of the rules all I am saying is that it is not necessary to retroactively strip wins and deduct points. Such punishment would stifle innovation, and would be a detriment to the sport. A team that has been found in violation is likely to have put themselves in the position of jumping a new engineering hurdle. I suggest that in most cases, that new engineering hurdle will be "punishment" enough.

[ringo]

Someone give Hamilton his 2007 championship.

[hollus]

Which is ironic as it still would not go to him on wins count!

[Cozza]

Someone give Hamilton his 2007 championship.

Hamilton wouldn't win Jack.
Alonso would of won Melbourne then if Kimi was removed. Clearly in front of Hamilton on wins.