Williams & Toyota DQ'd

[garcon]

Welcome QuickSilver - and thanks for the mental image...

[f1manoz]

Shame for Williams/Ralf but I'm sure McLaren are happy to have both cars in the points.

[Kicking-back]

True.

[BootsOntheSide]

Originally posted by RapidTron
those cars wouldnt have been allowed start the race had they found it after qualifying. you cant blame the fia for the brake problems, because 8 other teams managed to deal with it without breaking the rules, including massas car which crashed due to a suspension failure, not brakes.

I always feel that, if a car's legal at the start of the race, it's legal full stop. A lot of things outside a team's control can happen over 69 laps, as demonstrated by Michael's 'plank' in Belgium 94 (which, even as a Shcuamcher-hater, I admit was an unfair decision)

Furthermore, is it posisble that Massa's suspension failed because of the load going through the rear brakes?

Remember also that Ralf had brake problems irrespective of their legality, so the advantage may not have been major.

Past incidents of a car being illegal but not increased in perforamcne because of it have only seen Constructor points docked (eg Austria 2000 and Brazil 1995)

[Kicking-back]

As far as I know, because of the parc ferme situation between qualifying and the race, the cars are only fully scrutineered for legality at the end of the race.

Therefore, the FIA wouldn't be pointing out problems before hand.

[z2252314]

Originally posted by BootsOntheSide


Past incidents of a car being illegal but not increased in perforamcne because of it have only seen Constructor points docked (eg Austria 2000 and Brazil 1995)

Thats Exactly right Boots. If there really was no performance advantage, then an appeal by Williams would have probably seen the drivers retrieve their points. However, Williams decided not to appeal.....I wonder why??

[neil_davidson2]

Originally posted by BootsOntheSide
I always feel that, if a car's legal at the start of the race, it's legal full stop. A lot of things outside a team's control can happen over 69 laps, as demonstrated by Michael's 'plank' in Belgium 94 (which, even as a Shcuamcher-hater, I admit was an unfair decision)

I understand what you're saying but if you opened this up then the teams may well invest time and effort into producing components that would wear or "break" during the race to produce a performance advantage.

I think constructors points are deducted if the car breaks the regs due to wear and tear during the race, but in this case I think the assumption is that all the cars involved started in an illegal config (ie deliberately breaking the rules) - happy to be corrected on this assumption.

[Kicking-back]

Originally posted by neil_davidson2
in this case I think the assumption is that all the cars involved started in an illegal config (ie deliberately breaking the rules) - happy to be corrected on this assumption.

No doubt they definitely started in an illegal configuration.

Whether they were DELIBERATELY breaking the rules are not is another issue, but on that ultimately doesn't matter - as they were rightly DQed anyway.

[BootsOntheSide]

Originally posted by z2252314
Thats Exactly right Boots. If there really was no performance advantage, then an appeal by Williams would have probably seen the drivers retrieve their points. However, Williams decided not to appeal.....I wonder why??

Could be right, but any performance advantage is debatable. On the one hand, Ralf had problems, but on the other hand Montoya (who's seen as more aggressive with machinery, hence his worse reliability) looked (knowingly?) reckless on the brakes and didn't have trouble. Toyota being affected adds another dimension.

[Kicking-back]

In Toyota's case, Mike Gascoyne is saying the offending part was just three millimetres out - and that it was a problem with the manufacturing tolerances.

[neil_davidson2]

Does anyone know if there are any tolerances written into the regs on these components? I seem to recall that when the McLarens nose dropped they tried to claim that it was only out by 2mm, and it turned out that they were outside the 3mm allowed tolerance and not the stated reg by 2mm so they were therefore out by 5mm in total.

[shiny side up!]

Originally posted by neil_davidson2
I understand what you're saying but if you opened this up then the teams may well invest time and effort into producing components that would wear or "break" during the race to produce a performance advantage.

In fact, this was fairly common practice in NASCAR in the 80s... a few of the cars had notoriously un-aerodynamic bumpers, so they affixed them very weakly and had teammates knock them off during the race to gain an advantage. Also, last year a NASCAR team rigged the rear suspension to fail at a superspeedway so the spoiler would drop down on the suspension stops and give them less drag.

[avsfan733]

Originally posted by z2252314
Why am I not suprised..... Williams were nowhere the last few races and suddenly there able to match it with Ferrari????

Two teams run illegal brake ducts on a circuit which is renowned for being hard on brakes and its just an honest oversight???

No performance gain???? PAAALLEAASEE!! the extra cooling may not directly make the car go faster but by keeping the brakes cooler the drivers are allowed to brake harder for a much longer period giving them a very clear implicit performance advantage!!!! By the way, if there was no performance advantage, then this would be clear grounds for appeal. Surely if Sam felt confident that there was no performance advantage, then he would have at least tried to appeal the penalty.

This just doesnt make sense!!! The air duct rules do not change from race to race, so if Williams and Toyota were able to understand and comply with the regulations for the first 7 races, how come they were suddenly confused by the regulation in the 8th race???

Isn't it weird that not one, but TWO teams make an "honest" mistake regarding the brake air ducts on a circuit where braking, and conservation of brakes, is critical to success????

I expect this from a team like Toyota, but I've lost a lot of respect for Williams today.

absolutely right, if you look a both those two cars, they have lots of horsepower but struggle elswhere...what a perfect way to skirt the rules. Look at the past results and Williams have been pretty handily beaten by BAR but this race that just totally flip flopped even though by most peopels estimates they are even on power. I am sorry but i think this was intentional and they got caught hoping it wouldn't get noticed

Originally posted by Wrex
Firstly, I wonder if those sympathetic to Williams here would be the same had it been Michael & Rubins cars caught with an illegal modification? I think not.

WREx you are absolutely right even though it hasn't been going on i opened this thread expecting to see a bunch of anti ferrari **** as seems to happen anytime the fia sneezes

[Knowlesy]

Rules arte rules and Williams and Toyota have to be disqualified if their cars are not within the rules. No question.

I also said that about the 1999 bargeboard fiasco though, and look what happened there.......

[Kicking-back]

Those who say this was done deliberately "in the hope it wouldn't be noticed" have obviously never seen what happens in the post-race technical checks. Very rigorous.

[dcp2685]

Originally posted by Wrex
Firstly, I wonder if those sympathetic to Williams here would be the same had it been Michael & Rubins cars caught with an illegal modification? I think not.

Anyway, I agree it does sound like a silly rule, but there is no doubt more too it that we are aware. And if open break cooling was allowed, the other cars in the field may have been faster as well.

In short, do the crime, pay the fine.


I find it amazing that a team as profesional as Williams would be caught out by this, very weird. Someone's head needs to be served up.

And Toyota as well? If this is true someone should go back and check the F1-2003GA then, maybe its results can be challenged.

Wow...add some sugar to that last post

Quite frankly i do see it as a silly rule. I don't see what harm it is to have better cooling on your brakes...after all brakes taht dont' fail are SAFE!!! Anyhew, they claim it didn't give them a performance advantage which i'm not so sure about. Montoya was surely braking WAY late into those corners when pressuring Schumi and it didn't look like he was going to back off much either.

But rules are rules. It's disturbing to see someone you root for run illegal machinery, but in all fairness it they break the rules, they gotta pay the price just like everyone else....w/ the exception of Benneton.

[dcp2685]

Originally posted by ralf fan
NO NO NO!!!

you RS finally drove welll.... and he gets nothing!!

Yea that sucks.....

[Tweed]

Will it spur him on at Indy or will it get him down??

Personally though, I don't think Ralf is that sensitive, he should go ok as long as he doesn't back it into Juan like he did 2 years ago

[Fondmetal]

why wasnt its picked up on friday practice? scrutineering before the event?>?

[Heebeegeetee]

Originally posted by BootsOntheSide
I always feel that, if a car's legal at the start of the race, it's legal full stop.

You're ignoring history, my friend. A couple of things that have happened in the past - the teams used to be allowed to top up fluids for post race wieghing. So all of a sudden the teams ran water cooled brakes and/or intercoolers. They dumped the water within a couple of laps, and hey presto, you run the rest of the race underweight. Then after the race they're allowed to top up fluids.

Or when previously the rules had a ride height limit to counter the high cornering speeds that the teams got from running ground effects. The cars would be measured before and after the race for a 6 cm ground clearance, but during the race the cars would be lowered either hydraulically or through some fancy method involving two stage springs.
There was a story that Nelson Piquet turned up with his Brabham at scrutineering, with a big lever in the cockpit. "What's that for?" "It's a handbrake - look." Lever is pulled, car dumps onto ground, sealing skirts to surface. "Look, you can't move it now!"

That's why the plank is such a great idea. The teams can do what they want for ride height, but if that plank ain't right after the race they're out.

The car should be legal after the race, if not before. If it's not legal after, then it wasn't legal during.

I have faith that the FIA have good grounds for limiting the brake duct size. It's just that our imagination doesn't stretch as far as that of those race engineers...

[Gt_R]

I think i feel very sorry for Ralf..he had a terrible year so far, yet just when he could make an impression, it's tainted with such incidents. And i believe he has the right to feel upset with Williams for it.

I wasn't giving this breach of rules much thought until some of the posters gave some pretty probable arguments. And now, i do think that the people who installed/approved the parts knew it beforehand that the parts were outside the regulations..which is a shame.

Quote:"I always feel that, if a car's legal at the start of the race, it's legal full stop."

I can't say i agree with this statement. So does that mean if a car is legal at the start, he pits at the first pitstop and make some illegal mods to the car, then it's still legal?

Quote K-B:"Those who say this was done deliberately "in the hope it wouldn't be noticed" have obviously never seen what happens in the post-race technical checks. Very rigorous."

Surprisingly, "very rigorous" as it is,it did not stop anti-Ferrari critics from MAKING UP accusations and allegations of Ferrari cheating...
I'm quite amused that Williams/Toyota gets so much sympathy and muted disapproval for being caught cheating when Ferrari could get worse bashing for nothing. But i must agree with K-B, i have faith in the system of checks FIA carry out during the weekend to check for the legality of the cars. It's very rigourous and systematic, and hence, i hope this incident would go one step to squash all those false allegations made against Ferrari.

I'm disappointed that Williams/Toyota are involved but i guess the pressure to perform must be really huge. This follows Peugeot's recent case in the Rallying...a disappointing trend.

What i'm more amused is that they try to pass it off as no performance gain... Sure, it may not shave half a second off a lap time, but it let's the car go at the optimal pace for more laps... Anyway, for teams with such huge reputation, i doubt if they're innocent (or no performance gain) they'd keep quiet and accept punishment meekly.

Somebody mentioned about other technical infringements are found but not exposed, and i find strange that neither FIA, Williams/Toyota gave much details about the brake infringement...are they trying to cover something - perhaps FIA disqualified Williams/Toyota for just one of the minor infringement, keep quiet about the others, and in exchange Toyota/Williams just accept the punishment without appeal? Just a thought, because i'm quite curious as to why a company as big/rich like Toyota would not challenge a DQ-dicision. :confused:

But anyway, personally IMO, while it affects the image of Williams and Toyota, and punishment is due to the teams,i think that the infringement is not the driver's fault and being a marginal breach, the drivers should at least keep half the points they scored.

[ysofast]

Cheating is nothing new. If done properly it wins races. The GT 40 had blocks in the front springs that were removed during the race via a cable in the cockpit to work around ride hight regs in the lemans. This worked out well for ford. Some one mentioned nascar, that is a cheating contest that is fun to watch. Having said all this can I saifly assume that it was no accident that illegal cooling ducts were fitted for Canada?

[nkh]

According to this http://f1.racing-live.com/en/headlin...14021453.shtml it looks like Toyota wanted to appeal, but didn't make it in time.... I don't understand how it's possible to miss such a deadline, maybe it's just a bad excuse. Atleased Williams accepted that their car didn't conform to the rules.

[thebear]

Originally posted by gttouring
i would like to see the rules pertaining towards coolant or brake ducting sizes...

:confused: Officially, the ducts were the correct size but the distance from the disc/wheel was incorrect (possibly only by a mm).

[avsfan733]

according to head of michelin racing pierre dupasquere (i butchered his name i know) the rule was put in place after people began using the airducts and there shape/position as aero aids as opposed to cooling ducts....given the tight regulations on the front ends then the rule seems perfectly reasonable in that respect with the constant efforts to control downforce