Celor de la Mclaren li s-au retras toate punctele

kill_them_all1000, on Sep 14 2007, 16:42, said:

Bwahahahhahahahhaha   O sa revin mai tarziu cu niste citate in care se arata negru pe alb cat de nenorocit e Mosley si Compania.

Citatele de care vorbeam mai devreme vor fi subliniate cu rosu, pe cand propriile mele pareri vor fi cu bold si intre paranteze drepte, restul sunt pasaje copy/paste din comunicatul oficial:

"Mr. de la Rosa's e-mail to Coughlan specifically stated that he wished to receive Ferrari's weight distribution for the purposes of testing it in the simulator the following day ("It would be important for us to know so that we could try it in the simulator"). Mr. de la Rosa explained to the WMSC at the meeting of 13 September 2007 that when Coughlan responded with the precise details in question, he (de la Rosa) decided that the weight distribution was so different to the McLaren car set up that it would not, in fact, be tested in the simulator. Mr de la Rosa says that thereafter he regarded the information as unimportant. It seems highly unlikely to the WMSC that a test driver would take a decision of this sort on his own. It also is not clear why, if Mr. de la Rosa regarded this information as unimportant, he would still convey and discuss it with Mr. Alonso some days later in his e-mail exchange of 25th March. Mr. de la Rosa's evidence also makes clear that there was no reluctance or hesitation about testing the Ferrari information for potential benefit, but only that on this occasion he says that there was a technical reason not to do so.

McLaren's Chief Engineer Mr. Lowe gave clear evidence that decisions relating to simulator testing would normally involve a number of engineering and other staff (as would running the tests themselves). It seems highly unlikely that decisions about what would be run in the simulator would by taken by a test driver on his own."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Although the e-mail exchange between Mr. Alonso and Mr. de la Rosa makes clear that they both were enthusiastic about trying the gas apparently used by Ferrari in its tyres, Mr de la Rosa's evidence to the WMSC was that he, on his own, decided to explore with a Bridgestone engineer whether the McLaren team should try this gas. He states that he had no other conversations with any other specialist staff within McLaren. His evidence is that the Bridgestone engineer in question doubted whether the gas would confer an advantage upon McLaren.

According to Mr de la Rosa, without further consultation with anyone else at McLaren, and despite the fact that this had apparently been successfully used at Ferrari, the idea was dropped and no actual attempt was made to test the gas in the tyres used by McLaren.

It seems unlikely to the WMSC that a test driver would engage in such consultations on his own without discussing it any further with anyone else at the team. It also seems unlikely that a decision on whether to pursue the matter further would be taken by a test driver on his own. Finally, Mr de la Rosa's evidence makes clear that there was no reluctance or hesitation about using the Ferrari information, but only that on this occasion it was concluded that there would be no advantage in doing so."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"McLaren stated in its submissions for the 13 September WMSC meeting that this new evidence on the number and timing of the communications merely confirmed what was already known: that Coughlan and Stepney were illicitly sharing Ferrari confidential information. It has also been suggested by McLaren that Coughlan and Stepney were acting on their own account and that possibly they were planning to seek new employment together elsewhere.

Without drawing a definitive conclusion on this point, the WMSC considered that it was difficult to reconcile this version of events with the number and timing of the contacts described above as if Coughlan and Stepney had simply been sharing information to facilitate a plan to search for new employment there would appear to be no particular reason for the contacts to have intensified around the tests and the Grands Prix and no reason for Coughlan to share information with McLaren's drivers. Rather, it appeared more likely that the information being exchanged related to those tests and the Grands Prix.

Further, in light of Coughlan's role within the McLaren team, it had seemed unlikely to the WMSC at the meeting on 26 July 2007 that Coughlan himself would have been able to make any direct or immediate use (whether personal or within his role at McLaren) of up to date information relating to the Ferrari car at the site of different Grands Prix. However, as detailed above, at the 13 September WMSC meeting, the WMSC heard new evidence to suggest that this was not the case and that Coughlan had, in fact, communicated to at least one McLaren driver statements from Stepney of which lap the Ferrari drivers would stop at during both the Australian Grand Prix and the Bahrain Grand Prix. [In Australia a castigat Kimi si in Bahrain Massa. Deci unde e marele avantaj Mclaren? Pana si nemuritorul Michi mai bungheste tura in care vor opri anumiti piloti.]"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"McLaren's submission made for and at the 26 July WMSC meeting indicated that Coughlan had a relatively limited managerial role and that it would not be possible for him to propose ideas without having to explain their provenance. In McLaren's submission, this demonstrated that, despite having detailed Ferrari technical information, Coughlan could not have used any of this information to benefit McLaren without a significant number of people at McLaren knowing. McLaren submitted statements from a number of its engineers [140, mai exact.] that those engineers were not aware of changes made to the McLaren car using confidential Ferrari information.

The submissions made for the 13 September WMSC meeting show that that Coughlan may have had a more active role in the design of the McLaren car than previously appreciated by the WMSC.

The WMSC does not have evidence that any complete Ferrari design was copied and subsequently wholly incorporated into the McLaren car as a result of Coughlan passing confidential from Stepney to McLaren. However, it is difficult to accept that the secret Ferrari information that was within Coughlan's knowledge never influenced his judgement in the performance of his duties. It is not necessary for McLaren to have copied a complete Ferrari design for it to have benefited from Coughlan's knowledge. For example, the secret Ferrari information cannot but have informed the views Coughlan expressed to others in the McLaren design department, for example regarding which design projects to prioritise or which research to pursue. The advantage gained may have been as subtle as Coughlan being in a position to suggest alternative ways of approaching different design challenges. [asta cred ca a fost cel mai ambiguu pasaj, n-ar fi rezistat in niciun tribunal]"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Evidence was submitted at the 13 September WMSC meeting by McLaren's Engineering Director, Mr. Lowe, that the dossier of Ferrari information found in Coughlan's possession did not contain information of particular use or interest to McLaren on the basis that the McLaren car was significantly different to the Ferrari car. This submission was apparently made on the basis of the review of the index to the dossier of Ferrari documents (Mr. Lowe having stated that he had not seen the dossier itself).

The WMSC does not accept this account. In both WMSC hearings and in written submissions, and from the direct knowledge of the WMSC Members, Formula One teams have great interest in each others' technology and go to considerable lengths (within the rules) to study each other's designs and innovations through direct observation, photographic evidence and othermeans. [No shit, Sherlock! Bine ai venit in Formula 1! Pe BMW Sauber de ce nu-i depuncteaza ca folosesc aripile gen "coif de viking", preluate fara scrupule de la Mclaren MP4-21 si MP4-22? (e doar un exemplu, sunt multe furtisaguri in F1)]
"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"McLaren has made detailed submissions indicating that none of the information received enhanced the McLaren car. McLaren has suggested to the WMSC that unless "actual use" and a demonstrated and itemised performance advantage can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. to a criminal law standard of proof), the WMSC is not permitted at law to impose a penalty.

The WMSC rejects this suggestion. The WMSC has full jurisdiction to apply Article 151© and stresses that it is not necessary for it to demonstrate that any confidential Ferrari information was directly copied by McLaren or put to direct use in the McLaren car to justify a finding that Article 151© was breached and/or that a penalty is merited. Nor does the WMSC need to show that any information improperly held led to any specifically identified sporting advantage, or indeed any advantage at all. Rather, the WMSC is entitled to treat possession of another team's information as an offence meriting a penalty on its own if it so chooses. [Pasajul asta e cireasa de pe tortul cu ciocolata. In traducere libera ar suna ceva de genul: fraiere, eu fac ce vreau pentru ca sunt FIA (Ferrari International Affairs, repet pentru a "tz" oara), n-am nevoie de dovezi ca sa trag concluzii.]"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The WMSC has taken note of McLaren's position that an injustice would occur if a penalty were imposed without the FIA having accepted McLaren's offer to inspect the McLaren premises and designs for evidence of Ferrari technology having been copied. However, as noted above, neither the finding of a breach nor the imposition of a penalty require evidence of McLaren having directly incorporated Ferrari technology. ["Ciresarii" strike again!  :thumbup: ]"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"- there was a clear intention on the part of a number of McLaren personnel to use some of the Ferrari confidential information in its own testing. If this was not in fact carried into effect it was only because there were technical reasons not to do so; [traducere libera: exista premiza ca Bula a vrut sa copieze la examen, dar nu a facut-o pentru ca stia mai bine lectia decat credea la inceput. Hai sa-l exmatriculam totusi, daca ia premiul I in locul tocilarului clasei?]
"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It seems to the WMSC clear that Coughlan's actions were intended by him to give McLaren a sporting advantage. He fed information about Ferrari's stopping strategy, braking system, weight distribution and other matters to McLaren's test driver. Furthermore, in light of Coughlan's undoubted experience, he is likely to have known a great deal about how to confer an advantage and the roles of different personnel within the team. It seems most unlikely that he confined his activities to sharing Ferrari's information with Mr. de la Rosa. It also seems most unlikely that his own work was not influenced in some way by the knowledge regarding the Ferrari car that he is known to have possessed.

Furthermore, it seems entirely unlikely to the WMSC that any Formula One driver would bear the sole responsibility for handling or processing sensitive Ferrari information (e.g. on substances used to inflate tyres or weight distribution) or deciding how or whether such information would be used or tested. In light of his experience, Coughlan would have known this and if he intended to reveal this information to McLaren, he is unlikely to have done so only to Mr. de la Rosa .

The WMSC therefore finds that a number of McLaren employees or agents were in unauthorised possession of, or knew or should have known that other McLaren employees or agents were in unauthorised possession of, highly confidential Ferrari technical information. In addition, the WMSC finds that there was an intention on the part of a number of McLaren personnel to use some of the Ferrari confidential information in its own testing.

The evidence leads the WMSC to conclude that some degree of sporting advantage was obtained, though it may forever be impossible to quantify that advantage in concrete terms.[Practic, orice concluzie ar fi tras FIA, nu se va afla vreodata daca e cea corecta sau nu. Cateodata inteleg accesele de nazism/stalinism ale lui Dennis sau Briatore in cursa, macar formuleaza decizii clare.] "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"McLaren is reminded of its right of appeal. In the event that an appeal is lodged with the FIA International Court of Appeal, the effect of this Decision will not be suspended pending the outcome of that appeal. [Asta am bagat-o pentru a clarifica o chestiune legata de un eventual apel (e mai mult o teorie a conspiratiei, dar WTF). Pe scurt, Curtea de Apel FIA e formata din 18 membri din tari diferite... so far so good. Ceea ce ma indispune oarecum pe mine este ca sase dintre ei isi vor incheia mandatul chiar anul asta, urmand ca inlocuitorii lor sa fie alesi de FIA. LOL,  cu alte cuvinte, lupu' il trimite pe frac'su la stana, pentru a o apara de... lupi. Mda, frumos.]"

Felicitarile mele Tifosilor si celor care inca mai cred in integritatea acestui sport, mai ales dupa ce ati citit "dovezile" FIA. Cred ca sunteti foarte bucurosi de faptul ca Ferrari va castiga (inca) un campionat pe nedrept.

dennis12225, on Sep 14 2007, 15:38, said:

adica daca tu te duci sa te operezi de apendicita, iti face anestezia, iar in timpul operatiei iti mai ia si un rinichi fara ca tu sa`ti dai vreo`data seama (sau daca da, fara sa`ti dai seama cine l`a luat)... atunci medicu' e cinstit, onest nu? din expresia pe care ai scris`o asa reiese!

si da, nu suntem in romania, unde se omoara bunica / strabunica / nevasta / copii pentru ca ucigasu` ii iubeste prea mult, sau pentru o datorie de 3 boabe de porumb si 2 lei (cum recita stirile de la 5); ci suntem in strainatate unde interesele sunt mult mai mari de ordinu`, milioane de dolari / euro!

oricum, daca o iei ca normala o judecata care se termina cu o asa pedeapsa, in lipsa dovezilor... nu stiu ce sa mai zic!
e ca si cum un judecator demonstreaza ca in ziua x ora y te`ai plimbat in locatia z si te acuza ca prin miscarea picioarelor tale ai bruiat campul electromagnetic de intercomunicatie intre super-satelitii nasa, aflati la mama naibii in cosmos. bineinteles ca nu poate demonstra, dar tot te baga la parnaie 30 de ani! e normal nu?

corneliu_89, on Sep 15 2007, 13:46, said:

Esti perspicace, deci daca doctorul imi scoate un rinichi sau imi lasa bisturiul inauntru sunt vizibile la radiografie deci e o dovada palbabila. Daca vroiai sa dai un exemplu inteligent puteai sa zici ca daca atunci cand sunt sub anestezic doctorul imi fura din buzunar bani, da e cinstit pentru ca nu am o dovada ca i-a luat el.

Asa este ai dreptate cu interesele, pana la urma problema voastra este ca a depunctat McLaren, nu stiu care ar putea fi marele efecte in afara ca Ferrari a castigat titlul. Posibil daca stam bine sa ne gandim s-ar putea asta sa fie o polita pentru amenintarile de acum cativa ani anumiti constructori F1 au zis ca isi fac propriul campionat separat de FIA, din cate tin eu minte era si nenea Ron Dennis printre ei. Eu ca fan Ferrari nu am nici o satisfactie cum a castigat titlul Ferrari anul asta, am satisfactie pentru victoriile obtinute pe pista nu pe o decizie la masa verde.

Bun, din citatele voastre deduc ca de pomana discutau De La Rosa cu Alonso pe mail setarile Ferrari pentru ca ei nu aveau putere de decizie, de acord cu voi, dar rolul unui pilot de teste este de a verifica, testa noile sasiuri, setarile pentru cursele urmatoare, deci la o setare Ferari De La Rosa era cel mai in masura sa-si dea cu parerea, Alonso ca veteran si principalul vinovat de forma buna a masinii McLaren a stiut si el ce inseamna acele setari si atentie distributia greutatii la o masina de F1. Ce se deduce ca a mai fost cineva de la McLaren mai mare care a putut face modificari.

Privitor la modificatul masinii facute in 2006 este o prostie ce s-a zis mai sus ca nu se poate modifica. O echipa de F1 scoate vreo 2 sau 3 evolutii ale sasiului, motoristul poate sa-i ofere 2-3 tipuri de motor. Din alt punct de vedere la acea tehnologie si surubul 15 de la pompa de apa poate da un plus daca este strans sau slabit, o racire mai buna a motorului inseamna o performanta mai buna. Deci modificari se mai fac si din mers un lucru foarte adevarat evolutiile ulterioare ale sasiului McLaren nu inseamna neaparat ca le-au copiat dupa cele de la Ferrari, dar poate au scos un sasiu mai bun exploatant slabiciunile sasiului Ferrari este posibil.

Nu mi se pare normal sa fac puscarie de pomana, ma refeream la marii evazionisti si corupti ai natiei care scapa de pedeapsa si mosulica care a mituit cu 10 000 lei vechi i-au facut dosar penal. Cum ti se pare ca un cap al lumii interlope sau un corupt a scapat ca nu sunt suficiente probe la dosar

kill_them_all1000, on Sep 14 2007, 12:26, said:

Doar atat s-a schimbat? Hai ca iti mai zic eu cate ceva:
- Sistemul de punctaj modificat din 10-6-4-3-2-1 in 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 ... pt. ca cei cu n locuri 2 sa primeasca mai multe puncte.
- Motorul sa reziste doua curse, nu una ... pt. ca la Ferrari, de exemplu, motorul era facut pentru viteza nu pentru curse de anduranta.
- Un singur set de cauciucuri sa fie folosit toata cursa ...

WildChild, on Sep 15 2007, 00:35, said:

O chestie pe care vad ca nu ai inteles-o prea bine, e faptul ca nu era neaparat necesar ca McLaren sa "copieze" un anumit lucru de la Ferrari.
Iti dau un exemplu cu examenul lui Bula, poate intelegi mai bine. Sa zicem ca Bula are la examen de rezolvat o integrala, care se poate rezolva sa zicem in 10 moduri diferite. El vede ciorna lui Strula, il vede pe acesta ca incearca 8 metode si acestea nu sunt bune. Automat el incearca modurile 9 si 10 de rezovare, si reuseste rezolvarea integralei. Intre timp examenul ia sfarsit. Saracul Strula, care s-a chinuit cu incercarile alea la primele 8 moduri de rezolvare, nu a reusit sa descopere ca modul corect e cel cu numarul 10, nu a rezolvat integrala asa ca ia nota 3. Bula, care a sarit peste primele 8 moduri deoarece a vazut ca nu sunt bune, a rezolvat integrala si ia nota 10. Tie ti se pare corecta notarea celor doi? Bula NU a copiat rezolvarea, dar s-a folosit de ceea ce a facut Strula pe ciorna.
Exact aceeasi chestie au facut-o si cei de la McLaren: au vazut din datele testelor celor de la Ferrari ce anume merita incercat, si ce nu ... si in loc sa piarda sute de ore testand chestii care stiau din acel dosar ca vor fi un esec, au testat altceva, reusind sa faca masina mai buna.

LuvRaluK, on Sep 16 2007, 10:37, said:

-Cu noul sistem de punctaj Schumacher avea un avans si mai mare in clasament , deci nu a fost o regula impotriva lui
-Regula cu un motor la 2 curse a fost introdusa pentru a se micsora costurile echipelor , nu ca Ferrari ar fi avut un motor puternic , construit pentru viteza care nu ar fi rezistat pentru cursele de anduranta , dovada ca ei au avut in ultimii ani cele mai putine probleme cu motoarele V10 , V8 , folosite pentru o cursa sau mai multe .
-Regula cu un singur set de cauciucuri aproape ca a costat0o pe McLaren un campionat mondial

hultan2003, on Sep 16 2007, 11:27, said:

Crezi? Hai sa luam de exemplu sezonul 2003, in care Schumacher a avut 93 de puncte, Kimi 91 iar Montoya 82.  Cu vechiul sistem de punctaj, Schumacher ar fi avut 77 de puncte, Kimi 67 ... deci 10 puncte diferenta intre primii doi, nu doar doua.
Sistemul 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 avantajeaza clar pilotul care ia de 10 ori locul 2 si o data locul 3, fata de cel care ia 8 (opt) locuri 1 si de 3 ori termina al 8-lea (sa zicem). Ti se pare normal?

Aici poate ai dreptate , dar au fost mult mai multe situatii in care ferrari au fost avantajati de federatia internationala decat situatiile in care au fot dezavantajati , asta e sigur

LuvRaluK, on Sep 16 2007, 10:37, said:

Termina unu' cu ineptiile se trezeste altul.
- Sistemul de punctaj e valabil pentru toti pilotii
- crezi ca ceilalti motoristi faceau motoare pentru mai multe curse?
- la fel ca si in primul caz, regula era valabila pentru toate echipele; daca mai luam in considerare ca existau doar doi producatori de pneuri in campionatul Formulei 1.

Si pentru cultura ta generala, Ron Dennis nu a fost de acord cu aceste schimbari.

kill_them_all1000, on Sep 16 2007, 13:33, said:

Ideea era ca Michael Schumacher castiga 70-80% din cursele la care participa, si s-au gandit "ia sa dam mai multe puncte celui de pe locul 2, poate pana la sfarsitul campionatului abandoneaza si idiotul ala ce tot iese primul (MS) si o sa castige campionatul si altcineva decat MS ca sa avem din nou concurenta".

Se pare ca "nenea" Wild Child e fan inrait mclaren   Au primit exact ceea ce trebuia, nu degeaba a fost luata decizia asta, ceva a fost acolo
Din partea mea putea sa-i excluda complet din F1 ptr ceea ce au facut

LuvRaluK, on Sep 16 2007, 14:01, said:

Dar poate castiga altu' 70-80% din curse si Schumacher profita de abandonul altuia. Trebuie sa inveti sa faci deosebirea intre o regula care se aplica tuturor si una care se aplica unui singur om.

Se pare ca Alonso i-a parat pe cei de la mclaren, nemultumit fiind ca nu e tratat ca pilotul Nr1   .

kill_them_all1000, on Sep 16 2007, 14:27, said:

Se pare ca nu ai inteles ce am zis ... o sa incerc sa explic mai "babeste".
In 2000, Schumi a avut cele mai multe victorii (9), urmat de Hakkinen cu 4.
In 2001, Schumi a avut cele mai multe victorii (9), urmat de frate-su cu 3.
In 2002, Schumi a avut cele mai multe victorii (11) urmat de Barrichello cu 4.
In 2003, Schumi a avut cele mai multe victorii (6), urmat de Barrichello cu 2.
In 2004, Schumi a avut cele mai multe victorii (13), urmat de Barrichello cu 2.
Regulamentul s-a schimbat in 2002, dupa ce 2 ani la rand Schumi a avut mai multe victorii decat toti ceilalti piloti la un loc. Si tu stai si vorbesti ca "poate altu castiga 70-80% din curse ...". LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Cand un regulament e ok ani la rand din pdv. al punctajului, si dintr-o data dupa 2 ani de dominatie absoluta a unui pilot se schimba punctajul la ce altceva te poti gandi decat la faptul ca s-a vrut "domolirea" unui anumit pilot?

Editat de LuvRaluK, 16 septembrie 2007 - 16:17.

Da bai nene, dar nu e Schumacher singurul care a avut sau va avea cele mai multe victorii intr'un campionat. De acea schimbare de regulament putea sa profite oricine.
Am mai explicat cum a ajuns Schumacher si Ferrari sa domine F1. In loc de LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL mai bine ai scrie "Multumim FIA".

Editat de kill_them_all1000, 16 septembrie 2007 - 16:29.

Oricum Schumi era pilotul nr.1 la Ferrari si era favorizat de echipa, in sensul ca Barrichelo primea ordine sa-l lase pe Schumi in fata in cazurile de "tete-a-tete" sau cand ar fi avut nevoie de puncte pentru a castiga campionatul (ori pentru a se distanta de pozitia a II-a in clasament). Masinile sunt construite la fel, nu cred ca Barichello ar fi acceptat ca masina lui sa aiba vreun dezavantaj fata de cea a lui Schumi...

kill_them_all1000, on Sep 16 2007, 17:26, said:

Unde dai si unde crapa. Raspunde nene la obiect: in momentul in care s-a facut respectiva modificare in punctarea pilotilor, ERA SAU NU ERA MICHAEL SCHUMACHER CEL DEZAVANTAJAT DE NOUL SISTEM (in cazul in care nu esti lamurit la ce ma refer, uita-te la numarul de victorii din 2000 si 2001)? Scurt ... fara abureli de genul "cum a ajuns Ferrari sa domine ...".