| bitterWRX | 06-24-2007 09:16 PM |
[QUOTE=Wr4wrX;18504129][url]www.formula1.com[/url] has a new layout if anybody's interested. A bit more hip and 21st century than the previous site.[/QUOTE]
I like the old layout better. This new layout doesn't have a professional-premier-top-of-the-motorsports-foodchain feel. It is "hipper"... but that's because it looks like some random guy's blog.
I like the old layout better. This new layout doesn't have a professional-premier-top-of-the-motorsports-foodchain feel. It is "hipper"... but that's because it looks like some random guy's blog.
| Counterfit | 06-24-2007 10:13 PM |
Yeah, and the pink dude (Alonso?) on the top is kinda... ick.
| KAX | 06-24-2007 10:21 PM |
[QUOTE=bitterWRX;18506363]I like the old layout better. This new layout doesn't have a professional-premier-top-of-the-motorsports-foodchain feel. It is "hipper"... but that's because it looks like some random guy's blog.[/QUOTE]
ditto, though I do like the car at the top.
ditto, though I do like the car at the top.
| Wr4wrX | 06-25-2007 01:17 AM |
[QUOTE=bitterWRX;18506363]I like the old layout better. This new layout doesn't have a professional-premier-top-of-the-motorsports-foodchain feel. It is "hipper"... but that's because it looks like some random guy's blog.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Counterfit;18506858]Yeah, and the pink dude (Alonso?) on the top is kinda... ick.[/QUOTE]
I rather like the pop-artsy, pink driver (I also think it's Alonso) . The black paint splatter on the left is a little ridiculous, but I think it fits the new look. I'm not formally trained in art or design, but I rather like the pink driver, blue car, lime green font, grey background combo.
I always felt the old layout was too compact. Maybe the new site is too much of the other extreme and doesn't preserve the professionalism (or McLaren stodginess) of F1. I feel like the new design takes a page from partying rock star RBR and Jordan book. Still, I find the new look rather refreshing.
[QUOTE=Counterfit;18506858]Yeah, and the pink dude (Alonso?) on the top is kinda... ick.[/QUOTE]
I rather like the pop-artsy, pink driver (I also think it's Alonso) . The black paint splatter on the left is a little ridiculous, but I think it fits the new look. I'm not formally trained in art or design, but I rather like the pink driver, blue car, lime green font, grey background combo.
I always felt the old layout was too compact. Maybe the new site is too much of the other extreme and doesn't preserve the professionalism (or McLaren stodginess) of F1. I feel like the new design takes a page from partying rock star RBR and Jordan book. Still, I find the new look rather refreshing.
| Wr4wrX | 06-27-2007 04:39 PM |
[quote]
[B]Ecclestone biography out in autumn[/B]
Wednesday, June 27th 2007, 17:19 GMT
Formula One supremo Bernie Ecclestone's authorised biography will be published in the autumn of 2007, it has been announced.
The book, written by personal friend Susan Watkins, will be called 'Bernie' and will reveal "the true struggle behind his fortune, the background to his relationships with politics and what reality, if any, there is to his detractor's accusations," according to its publishers, Ebury Press.
Author Watkins, a writer and historical biographer, has known Ecclestone for over twenty years.
She is married to Professor Sid Watkins, Formula One's former chief doctor and medical advisor.
"It must be the truth, I have nothing to hide," said Ecclestone of the book.
[/quote]
I really wonder how balanced the book will be. The number of conflicts of interest in F1 is unsettlingly staggering (but that's best left for another discussion).
[IMG]http://www.autosport.com/images/upload/1182971958.jpg[/IMG]
Relatively the best/coolest picture I've seen of Bernie--he generally looks like death.
[B]Ecclestone biography out in autumn[/B]
Wednesday, June 27th 2007, 17:19 GMT
Formula One supremo Bernie Ecclestone's authorised biography will be published in the autumn of 2007, it has been announced.
The book, written by personal friend Susan Watkins, will be called 'Bernie' and will reveal "the true struggle behind his fortune, the background to his relationships with politics and what reality, if any, there is to his detractor's accusations," according to its publishers, Ebury Press.
Author Watkins, a writer and historical biographer, has known Ecclestone for over twenty years.
She is married to Professor Sid Watkins, Formula One's former chief doctor and medical advisor.
"It must be the truth, I have nothing to hide," said Ecclestone of the book.
[/quote]
I really wonder how balanced the book will be. The number of conflicts of interest in F1 is unsettlingly staggering (but that's best left for another discussion).
[IMG]http://www.autosport.com/images/upload/1182971958.jpg[/IMG]
Relatively the best/coolest picture I've seen of Bernie--he generally looks like death.
| artkevin | 06-27-2007 04:47 PM |
I think he is trying to steal my soul through that book cover.
I might read it. I actually kind of like the guy. Max on the other hand...
I might read it. I actually kind of like the guy. Max on the other hand...
| KAX | 06-27-2007 04:51 PM |
im liking max more then bernie at this point. at least he's trying to make it better.
| StuBeck | 06-28-2007 05:46 PM |
[url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=QNmIOS4zuac&mode=related&search=[/url]
Finally found the RBR/STR video they made earlier in the year.
Finally found the RBR/STR video they made earlier in the year.
| artkevin | 06-29-2007 12:05 AM |
Nice find Stu. I always wondered were that footage was. Not sure what the point was but it sure was cool!
| parker/slc/gc8fan | 06-29-2007 12:13 PM |
[QUOTE=KAX;18541523]im liking max more then bernie at this point. at least he's trying to make it better.[/QUOTE]
I would say yes, but as soon as I think about it I realize what role he played in indy 2005. I haven't really seen an apology either.
Is it possible two people can be Satan?
I would say yes, but as soon as I think about it I realize what role he played in indy 2005. I haven't really seen an apology either.
Is it possible two people can be Satan?
| TimStevens | 06-29-2007 12:31 PM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck;18554964][url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=QNmIOS4zuac&mode=related&search=[/url]
Finally found the RBR/STR video they made earlier in the year.[/QUOTE]
Thanks. That was pretty dumb, but entertaining.
Finally found the RBR/STR video they made earlier in the year.[/QUOTE]
Thanks. That was pretty dumb, but entertaining.
| initialdgarage | 06-29-2007 01:09 PM |
Nice vid.
| KAX | 06-29-2007 01:51 PM |
[QUOTE=parker/slc/gc8fan;18562744]I would say yes, but as soon as I think about it I realize what role he played in indy 2005. I haven't really seen an apology either.
Is it possible two people can be Satan?[/QUOTE]
ones Satan, ones Saddam. whose the taker?
Is it possible two people can be Satan?[/QUOTE]
ones Satan, ones Saddam. whose the taker?
| StuBeck | 06-29-2007 05:26 PM |
[QUOTE=parker/slc/gc8fan;18562744]I would say yes, but as soon as I think about it I realize what role he played in indy 2005. I haven't really seen an apology either.
Is it possible two people can be Satan?[/QUOTE]
Indy 05 was all the teams fault, no one elses. It was a setup issue which caused the tire problems.
Is it possible two people can be Satan?[/QUOTE]
Indy 05 was all the teams fault, no one elses. It was a setup issue which caused the tire problems.
| artkevin | 06-29-2007 07:12 PM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck;18566465]Indy 05 was all the teams fault, no one elses. It was a setup issue which caused the tire problems.[/QUOTE]
I disagree 100% Stu. It was everyone's fault starting with Toyota. They were running far too soft (as they were all year) but other teams, like Red Bull and McLaren were having the same issues just not as severe.
The FIA was guilty of not helping the situation in any way shape or form. The teams were guilty of not finding any type of compromise. So pretty much everyone was to blame for not putting on a show and putting a hug blot on the face of Formula.
I disagree 100% Stu. It was everyone's fault starting with Toyota. They were running far too soft (as they were all year) but other teams, like Red Bull and McLaren were having the same issues just not as severe.
The FIA was guilty of not helping the situation in any way shape or form. The teams were guilty of not finding any type of compromise. So pretty much everyone was to blame for not putting on a show and putting a hug blot on the face of Formula.
| OnTheGas | 06-30-2007 07:15 PM |
Whose fault Indy '05
�
�
Indy '05 was not the Michelin teams' fault... they would have been in legal jeopardy if they had raced.
Indy '05 was not FIA's fault, as it would have been unsafe to reconfigure the track on Saturday.
Indy '05 was Michelin's fault. They miscalculated the structural requirements for that weekend.
Max Mosely is making strategic mistakes currently, but he handled Indy '05 correctly.
Indy '05 was not FIA's fault, as it would have been unsafe to reconfigure the track on Saturday.
Indy '05 was Michelin's fault. They miscalculated the structural requirements for that weekend.
Max Mosely is making strategic mistakes currently, but he handled Indy '05 correctly.
| StuBeck | 06-30-2007 08:52 PM |
[QUOTE=artkevin;18567431]I disagree 100% Stu. It was everyone's fault starting with Toyota. They were running far too soft (as they were all year) but other teams, like Red Bull and McLaren were having the same issues just not as severe.
The FIA was guilty of not helping the situation in any way shape or form. The teams were guilty of not finding any type of compromise. So pretty much everyone was to blame for not putting on a show and putting a hug blot on the face of Formula.[/QUOTE]
The reason I say its the teams fault is because it was all a setup issue. The teams ran too little air in their tyres, so they deflected into the rear wing end plates, and when that happens, bad things happen. This is the reason the tyres had issues. They could have added more air to the tyres and been completely fine, but decided not to because it was beneficial to them in signing the extended concorde agreement. The teams were also very bad in their handling of the issue. Everyone but Ferrari agreed to a plan to race, but the reason ferrari wasn't in agreement is because [I]no one asked them.[/I]
The reason they ran so little air in the tyres is because they had to run the entire race with them, this is the reason they didn't have the problems in 04 or 06 (when they had the longer end plates which went over the tyre) because they didn't have the lower air pressure.
The same exact issue in 05 happened at Turkey with Williams. The reason the teams did not make a big deal about it is because all of this was already out in the open. They had already also received the concessions they demanded.
All of this was of course not brought up in the main stream press because of how damaging it was to the teams. It can be seen in many other facets of life, where certain aspects of otherwise honorable people are simply forgotten by the rest to bring them up.
[QUOTE=OnTheGas;18575062]Indy '05 was not the Michelin teams' fault... they would have been in legal jeopardy if they had raced.
Indy '05 was not FIA's fault, as it would have been unsafe to reconfigure the track on Saturday.
Indy '05 was Michelin's fault. They miscalculated the structural requirements for that weekend.
Max Mosely is making strategic mistakes currently, but he handled Indy '05 correctly.[/QUOTE]
See above, they didn't change anything in the structural integrity of the tyre in 06 to handle the loads. Mosley's idea of letting the teams change their tyres would have worked perfectly, they would have started with higher pressures which would have stopped the issue from occurring at all, and we would have gotten a real race.
The FIA was guilty of not helping the situation in any way shape or form. The teams were guilty of not finding any type of compromise. So pretty much everyone was to blame for not putting on a show and putting a hug blot on the face of Formula.[/QUOTE]
The reason I say its the teams fault is because it was all a setup issue. The teams ran too little air in their tyres, so they deflected into the rear wing end plates, and when that happens, bad things happen. This is the reason the tyres had issues. They could have added more air to the tyres and been completely fine, but decided not to because it was beneficial to them in signing the extended concorde agreement. The teams were also very bad in their handling of the issue. Everyone but Ferrari agreed to a plan to race, but the reason ferrari wasn't in agreement is because [I]no one asked them.[/I]
The reason they ran so little air in the tyres is because they had to run the entire race with them, this is the reason they didn't have the problems in 04 or 06 (when they had the longer end plates which went over the tyre) because they didn't have the lower air pressure.
The same exact issue in 05 happened at Turkey with Williams. The reason the teams did not make a big deal about it is because all of this was already out in the open. They had already also received the concessions they demanded.
All of this was of course not brought up in the main stream press because of how damaging it was to the teams. It can be seen in many other facets of life, where certain aspects of otherwise honorable people are simply forgotten by the rest to bring them up.
[QUOTE=OnTheGas;18575062]Indy '05 was not the Michelin teams' fault... they would have been in legal jeopardy if they had raced.
Indy '05 was not FIA's fault, as it would have been unsafe to reconfigure the track on Saturday.
Indy '05 was Michelin's fault. They miscalculated the structural requirements for that weekend.
Max Mosely is making strategic mistakes currently, but he handled Indy '05 correctly.[/QUOTE]
See above, they didn't change anything in the structural integrity of the tyre in 06 to handle the loads. Mosley's idea of letting the teams change their tyres would have worked perfectly, they would have started with higher pressures which would have stopped the issue from occurring at all, and we would have gotten a real race.
| parker/slc/gc8fan | 07-01-2007 12:54 AM |
Last I heard, Max wouldnt let the teams change tires.
Given your other post, that may have helped.
Any source links? I'm not going to start liking max because of it, but I'm not going to forget 05 either.
Given your other post, that may have helped.
Any source links? I'm not going to start liking max because of it, but I'm not going to forget 05 either.
| OnTheGas | 07-01-2007 10:15 AM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck;18575642]... The teams ran too little air in their tyres, so they deflected into the rear wing end plates...[/QUOTE]Wow! I'll confess that this is the first time I've heard this.
Just so I'm clear... Are you saying that the Michelin tires were rubbing the wings at Indy '05, and that caused the failures?
Just so I'm clear... Are you saying that the Michelin tires were rubbing the wings at Indy '05, and that caused the failures?
| KAX | 07-01-2007 12:01 PM |
isnt this the '07 thread?
| bezerk | 07-01-2007 01:38 PM |
[QUOTE=KAX;18579218]isnt this the '07 thread?[/QUOTE]
It's all good.
It's all good.
| artkevin | 07-01-2007 08:04 PM |
[QUOTE=OnTheGas;18578771]Wow! I'll confess that this is the first time I've heard this.
Just so I'm clear... Are you saying that the Michelin tires were rubbing the wings at Indy '05, and that caused the failures?[/QUOTE]
That is what happened in Turkey and that [I]might[/I] have been what happened to Toyota. There was a fundamental flaw in the way the Michelin tires tread met the side wall. They were more two elements that met at one point as opposed to the B'stones being intergrated together. They had the same type of construction since they reentered F1 years ago. B'stone has tons more experience on ovals, particularly Indy with running Firstones for the entire month of May for the 500. Couple that with the diamond grinding of the surface, which NASCAR and IRL had huge problems with, and you have all the elements to have what happened there in 05.
Now back to your regularly scheduled 07 thread....
Just so I'm clear... Are you saying that the Michelin tires were rubbing the wings at Indy '05, and that caused the failures?[/QUOTE]
That is what happened in Turkey and that [I]might[/I] have been what happened to Toyota. There was a fundamental flaw in the way the Michelin tires tread met the side wall. They were more two elements that met at one point as opposed to the B'stones being intergrated together. They had the same type of construction since they reentered F1 years ago. B'stone has tons more experience on ovals, particularly Indy with running Firstones for the entire month of May for the 500. Couple that with the diamond grinding of the surface, which NASCAR and IRL had huge problems with, and you have all the elements to have what happened there in 05.
Now back to your regularly scheduled 07 thread....
| Counterfit | 07-01-2007 09:03 PM |
[QUOTE=parker/slc/gc8fan;18577219]Last I heard, Max wouldnt let the teams change tires.[/QUOTE]
Charlie Whiting said that changing the tires as necessary was an option for the teams, but they would have to show it was a safety issue or they'd be penalized, per The Rules.
Anyways, back to now: [COLOR="Red"][SIZE="5"][B]FERRARI'S BACK BITCHES![/B][/SIZE][/COLOR]
Charlie Whiting said that changing the tires as necessary was an option for the teams, but they would have to show it was a safety issue or they'd be penalized, per The Rules.
Anyways, back to now: [COLOR="Red"][SIZE="5"][B]FERRARI'S BACK BITCHES![/B][/SIZE][/COLOR]
| StuBeck | 07-01-2007 09:31 PM |
[QUOTE=parker/slc/gc8fan;18577219]Last I heard, Max wouldnt let the teams change tires.
Given your other post, that may have helped.
Any source links? I'm not going to start liking max because of it, but I'm not going to forget 05 either.[/QUOTE]
Max was going to allow them change tyres every lap if they wanted. The problem was the teams didn't want to because they would have lost lots of time (you couldn't add fuel to the car if you changed a tyre.) The teams just didn't want to do this because it went against their ability to protest.
No, I don't have any links. I know Peter Windsor brought it up shortly after Turkey and Williams 4 sepearte tyre failures. I believe it wasn't brought up because no one wanted to be the first to state something like this and possibly lose their contacts at teams.
[QUOTE=OnTheGas;18578771]Wow! I'll confess that this is the first time I've heard this.
Just so I'm clear... Are you saying that the Michelin tires were rubbing the wings at Indy '05, and that caused the failures?[/QUOTE]
Yes.
[QUOTE=KAX;18579218]isnt this the '07 thread?[/QUOTE]
Yep.
Given your other post, that may have helped.
Any source links? I'm not going to start liking max because of it, but I'm not going to forget 05 either.[/QUOTE]
Max was going to allow them change tyres every lap if they wanted. The problem was the teams didn't want to because they would have lost lots of time (you couldn't add fuel to the car if you changed a tyre.) The teams just didn't want to do this because it went against their ability to protest.
No, I don't have any links. I know Peter Windsor brought it up shortly after Turkey and Williams 4 sepearte tyre failures. I believe it wasn't brought up because no one wanted to be the first to state something like this and possibly lose their contacts at teams.
[QUOTE=OnTheGas;18578771]Wow! I'll confess that this is the first time I've heard this.
Just so I'm clear... Are you saying that the Michelin tires were rubbing the wings at Indy '05, and that caused the failures?[/QUOTE]
Yes.
[QUOTE=KAX;18579218]isnt this the '07 thread?[/QUOTE]
Yep.
| StuBeck | 07-01-2007 09:40 PM |
[url]http://www.stuartbecktell.com/USGP2007/Site/2007%20USGP.html[/url]
Updated list of pictures I took at Indy. This time I used a real photo editor and not iPhoto.
Updated list of pictures I took at Indy. This time I used a real photo editor and not iPhoto.
| parker/slc/gc8fan | 07-02-2007 01:01 AM |
Just because so many drivers are talking about it [B]this year[/B] I think a good subject would be talking about the low downforce wash out cars see when fighting for position. A year or so ago we saw murmers of this from the FIA. We even saw one idea of splitting the rear wing in two, as to minimize the amount of air it takes from the ground
[IMG]http://www.vasanth.in/content/binary/1782256506__CDG_graphic_thumb.jpg[/IMG]
To clarify, the air turbulence behind a car being created by the vast amount of aero work on the cars in the last ten years causes a car following closely behind to lose alot of it dowforce therefore costing it performance needed to pass.
[IMG]http://www.vasanth.in/content/binary/1306371943__CDG_Air_Flow_graphic_thumb1.jpg[/IMG]
[URL="http://www.vasanth.in/2005/10/24/SplitFrontWingIn2007.aspx"]source link[/URL]
To quote (roughly) lewis Hamilton after the French G.P. 07:
You'd probably have to be a couple seconds a lap faster, at least, to be able to pass a car.
If anyone saw The driver interviews at indy I'll remind you that Fernando Alonso believes if anything should be done to make F1 more competative: He said, "I think Aero should be banned". (rough quote again)
I'd like to specifiy that I think Downforce should be banned. Since Low drag has a much firmer grasp in being important for fuel efficiancy. I think it really would help us see better races if cars with dowforce were banned.
[IMG]http://www.vasanth.in/content/binary/1782256506__CDG_graphic_thumb.jpg[/IMG]
To clarify, the air turbulence behind a car being created by the vast amount of aero work on the cars in the last ten years causes a car following closely behind to lose alot of it dowforce therefore costing it performance needed to pass.
[IMG]http://www.vasanth.in/content/binary/1306371943__CDG_Air_Flow_graphic_thumb1.jpg[/IMG]
[URL="http://www.vasanth.in/2005/10/24/SplitFrontWingIn2007.aspx"]source link[/URL]
To quote (roughly) lewis Hamilton after the French G.P. 07:
You'd probably have to be a couple seconds a lap faster, at least, to be able to pass a car.
If anyone saw The driver interviews at indy I'll remind you that Fernando Alonso believes if anything should be done to make F1 more competative: He said, "I think Aero should be banned". (rough quote again)
I'd like to specifiy that I think Downforce should be banned. Since Low drag has a much firmer grasp in being important for fuel efficiancy. I think it really would help us see better races if cars with dowforce were banned.
| StuBeck | 07-02-2007 07:58 AM |
The problem with the split wing is that the aero chart they showed there was in the middle of the car. There is still going to be a large area where the other two parts of the wing are. I think going to ground effects, and letting the cars run their front wings closer to the track will allow more passing.
I don't think you can just outright ban downforce though. It isn't really needed for one thing, the car is always going to be dodgy when you are right behind someone else, but ground effects, which aren't greatly effected by a car in front, will fix that.
I don't think you can just outright ban downforce though. It isn't really needed for one thing, the car is always going to be dodgy when you are right behind someone else, but ground effects, which aren't greatly effected by a car in front, will fix that.
| OnTheGas | 07-02-2007 10:50 AM |
What? The tooth fairy is real?!?
�
�
[quote=OnTheGas;18578771]Just so I'm clear... Are you saying that the Michelin tires were rubbing the wings at Indy '05, and that caused the failures?[/quote][QUOTE=StuBeck;18582878]Yes.[/QUOTE]:huh:
[list]There were three separate problems at Indy '05:[*]The technical problem as it was understood by the decision makers at the time ([URL="http://www.autosport.com/journal/article.php/id/163"]Michelin's sidewalls were detaching from the tread for 5 of the 7 Michelin teams' tires on Friday[/url])[*]The understanding of the technical problem after full failure analysis was completed long after the event[*]And the political solution (how to stage a safe race despite the existing understanding of the technical problem at that time?)[/list]On that last problem, the political solution for that weekend, we are looking back from 2007 to 2005. As typical F1 fans, we have a [url="http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-788377.html"]variety of opinions on the political solutions to solve that problem[/url].
But on the first problem, the technical problem as it was understood then at Indy, has been well, and clearly documented. No one here should gain the false impression that any of the principle decision makers that weekend had the impression that tires were being cut on the rear wing.
Craig Scarborough, AutoSport.com's Technical Writer, wrote an excellent [url="http://www.autosport.com/journal/article.php/id/163"]Technical Analysis of the Michelin tire failures on 2005-06-22.[/url] The [url="http://gallery.autosport.com/picture.php?dir=scarbs&image=2005usa1"]picture[/url] of Ralf's left rear tire, which accompanied the article clearly shows no signs of external (scrapping the wing, etc.) damage. It shows the sidewall and tread separated at their joint.
In his article, Craig said, "...the side loading on the tyres was making the sidewall detach from the tread, leading to total tyre failure. Other teams checked their tyres and all bar two teams (Renault and McLaren) were found to be in the early stages of a similar failure."
He points at Zonta's tire failure earlier on Friday was in turn 11. When Ralf crashed going into 13, the telemetry showed no mechanical failure, nor a deflating tire, so they then knew it was a tire failure. "Michelin checked the tyre for cutting, perhaps as a result of Zonta's accident, and found both tyre failures to be of a similar pattern and not caused by damage." He goes on about Michelin's analysis, and then the technical options to solve the problem that weekend.
Regarding the political solution, Adam Cooper wrote an excellent article titled [url="http://www.autosport.com/journal/article.php/id/157"]"Chronicle of a Debacle Foretold"[/url] which documents the players wrestling with this issue that weekend. He talks to team principles, technical leads & engineers, and Bernie. They all were operating on the information that the Michelin tires were separating at the sidewall and tread due to structural failure.
In summary, it would be inappropriate, and factually inaccurate, to suggest that the political opinions and decisions made that weekend were made under the impression that the technical problem was the chassis rubbing against the tires. That is not a fact. That weekend, the principle players all understood the problem to be the structural failure of the Michelins.
Stuart, if you still believe that tires were rubbing @ Indy, and causing failures, you need to share the sources with us which lead you to believe that to be true.
[list]There were three separate problems at Indy '05:[*]The technical problem as it was understood by the decision makers at the time ([URL="http://www.autosport.com/journal/article.php/id/163"]Michelin's sidewalls were detaching from the tread for 5 of the 7 Michelin teams' tires on Friday[/url])[*]The understanding of the technical problem after full failure analysis was completed long after the event[*]And the political solution (how to stage a safe race despite the existing understanding of the technical problem at that time?)[/list]On that last problem, the political solution for that weekend, we are looking back from 2007 to 2005. As typical F1 fans, we have a [url="http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-788377.html"]variety of opinions on the political solutions to solve that problem[/url].
But on the first problem, the technical problem as it was understood then at Indy, has been well, and clearly documented. No one here should gain the false impression that any of the principle decision makers that weekend had the impression that tires were being cut on the rear wing.
Craig Scarborough, AutoSport.com's Technical Writer, wrote an excellent [url="http://www.autosport.com/journal/article.php/id/163"]Technical Analysis of the Michelin tire failures on 2005-06-22.[/url] The [url="http://gallery.autosport.com/picture.php?dir=scarbs&image=2005usa1"]picture[/url] of Ralf's left rear tire, which accompanied the article clearly shows no signs of external (scrapping the wing, etc.) damage. It shows the sidewall and tread separated at their joint.
In his article, Craig said, "...the side loading on the tyres was making the sidewall detach from the tread, leading to total tyre failure. Other teams checked their tyres and all bar two teams (Renault and McLaren) were found to be in the early stages of a similar failure."
He points at Zonta's tire failure earlier on Friday was in turn 11. When Ralf crashed going into 13, the telemetry showed no mechanical failure, nor a deflating tire, so they then knew it was a tire failure. "Michelin checked the tyre for cutting, perhaps as a result of Zonta's accident, and found both tyre failures to be of a similar pattern and not caused by damage." He goes on about Michelin's analysis, and then the technical options to solve the problem that weekend.
Regarding the political solution, Adam Cooper wrote an excellent article titled [url="http://www.autosport.com/journal/article.php/id/157"]"Chronicle of a Debacle Foretold"[/url] which documents the players wrestling with this issue that weekend. He talks to team principles, technical leads & engineers, and Bernie. They all were operating on the information that the Michelin tires were separating at the sidewall and tread due to structural failure.
In summary, it would be inappropriate, and factually inaccurate, to suggest that the political opinions and decisions made that weekend were made under the impression that the technical problem was the chassis rubbing against the tires. That is not a fact. That weekend, the principle players all understood the problem to be the structural failure of the Michelins.
Stuart, if you still believe that tires were rubbing @ Indy, and causing failures, you need to share the sources with us which lead you to believe that to be true.
| StuBeck | 07-02-2007 01:03 PM |
I've already shared the sources. Peter Windsor talked to the Williams team after they had the issue in Turkey and found out what the problem was. Maybe it wasn't specifically rubbing against the rear wing, but the low tyre pressures is what caused them to have an issue (I also never said it was the chassis rubbing against the tyre.) I am positive of this because the construction of the tyre did not change at all from 01-06, yet it was only a problem when they had to run for one year. The teams fixed this issue later in the year...well, everyone but Williams.
| artkevin | 07-02-2007 01:11 PM |
I still agree with OnTheGas.
His info and recollection match mine as far as construction techniques rather then tire pressure and rub. It was the two planes meeting at too severe of an angle for oval racing.
That pic of Ralf's tire is good but it does not dis-prove Stu's point. That is the outside sidewall shown not the inside which is the part that would rub.
You are right about Turkey Stu but I've never heard anyone claim that that was the same issue in Indy.
His info and recollection match mine as far as construction techniques rather then tire pressure and rub. It was the two planes meeting at too severe of an angle for oval racing.
That pic of Ralf's tire is good but it does not dis-prove Stu's point. That is the outside sidewall shown not the inside which is the part that would rub.
You are right about Turkey Stu but I've never heard anyone claim that that was the same issue in Indy.
| StuBeck | 07-02-2007 01:15 PM |
I can't see the picture, can you guys host it somewhere else?
I think you guys are misunderstanding me a bit with the tyre construction techniques. I agree that is what caused the issue with them falling apart, or deflecting (otherwise bridgestone should have had the same problem.) The reason it was a "setup issue" is because the teams ran too little pressure in the tyres, which caused them to behave in ways they didn't on normal turns, and caused them to have issues, which in one way or another, caused them to fail. If they ran a normal amount of air, like they did in 04 and 06, they wouldn't have had an issue.
I think you guys are misunderstanding me a bit with the tyre construction techniques. I agree that is what caused the issue with them falling apart, or deflecting (otherwise bridgestone should have had the same problem.) The reason it was a "setup issue" is because the teams ran too little pressure in the tyres, which caused them to behave in ways they didn't on normal turns, and caused them to have issues, which in one way or another, caused them to fail. If they ran a normal amount of air, like they did in 04 and 06, they wouldn't have had an issue.
| artkevin | 07-02-2007 01:47 PM |
Toyota was the only team that I know of that was running low PSI in Indy.
| StuBeck | 07-02-2007 02:46 PM |
They all were. It was part of the setup process they ran because of the long life tyres they had to run.
| OnTheGas | 07-02-2007 03:10 PM |
On tire cuts & air pressures @ Indy '05
�
�
[QUOTE=artkevin;18588594]...That pic of Ralf's tire is good but it does not dis-prove Stu's point. That is the outside sidewall shown not the inside which is the part that would rub...[/QUOTE]Oh yes, thank you for the correction!
So therefore the only thing disproving Stu's point would be that the Michelin engineers, and team engineers, examined all the tires in question, and found that they were not damaged (from punctures, cuts, etc.), and were either [B]failed[/B] at the sidewall / tread joint (Zonta's and Ralfie's tires), or were in the [B]process of failing[/B] (the tires off all the other Michelin runners, w/the exception of McLaren & Renault). That info is found in the [URL="http://www.autosport.com/journal/index.html/id/17"]two articles[/URL] that I referenced previously, as well possibly others there.
So Stu, not to pick on you here, but please help us understand. If simply running higher pressures would have solved the problem w/the Michelin tires, then why did the teams not race? Air pressure is a simple, and normal, adjustment.
So therefore the only thing disproving Stu's point would be that the Michelin engineers, and team engineers, examined all the tires in question, and found that they were not damaged (from punctures, cuts, etc.), and were either [B]failed[/B] at the sidewall / tread joint (Zonta's and Ralfie's tires), or were in the [B]process of failing[/B] (the tires off all the other Michelin runners, w/the exception of McLaren & Renault). That info is found in the [URL="http://www.autosport.com/journal/index.html/id/17"]two articles[/URL] that I referenced previously, as well possibly others there.
So Stu, not to pick on you here, but please help us understand. If simply running higher pressures would have solved the problem w/the Michelin tires, then why did the teams not race? Air pressure is a simple, and normal, adjustment.
| wvallwheeldrive | 07-02-2007 05:51 PM |
I don't know the construction differances between NASCAR and F1 tires but a year or so ago NASCAR had the same kind of tire problems and from the teams run less the 10 PSI in the drivers side tire. So before tire pressure built up they where going through the corners on the inside sidewall of the tire weaking it to the point that in 15 laps the tire would come apart.
NASCARs fix minimum starting tire pressure problem solved race went on without a further problem.
So i'm not sure why F1 wouldn't have done the same thing.
NASCARs fix minimum starting tire pressure problem solved race went on without a further problem.
So i'm not sure why F1 wouldn't have done the same thing.
| artkevin | 07-02-2007 06:20 PM |
[QUOTE=OnTheGas;18590239]
So therefore the only thing disproving Stu's point would be that the Michelin engineers, and team engineers, examined all the tires in question, and found that they were not damaged (from punctures, cuts, etc.), and were either [B]failed[/B] at the sidewall / tread joint (Zonta's and Ralfie's tires), or were in the [B]process of failing[/B] (the tires off all the other Michelin runners, w/the exception of McLaren & Renault). That info is found in the [URL="http://www.autosport.com/journal/index.html/id/17"]two articles[/URL] that I referenced previously, as well possibly others there.
[/QUOTE]
Again, I agree with you. My point was just that the picture neither proved nor disproved Stu's point.
So therefore the only thing disproving Stu's point would be that the Michelin engineers, and team engineers, examined all the tires in question, and found that they were not damaged (from punctures, cuts, etc.), and were either [B]failed[/B] at the sidewall / tread joint (Zonta's and Ralfie's tires), or were in the [B]process of failing[/B] (the tires off all the other Michelin runners, w/the exception of McLaren & Renault). That info is found in the [URL="http://www.autosport.com/journal/index.html/id/17"]two articles[/URL] that I referenced previously, as well possibly others there.
[/QUOTE]
Again, I agree with you. My point was just that the picture neither proved nor disproved Stu's point.
| StuBeck | 07-02-2007 07:33 PM |
[QUOTE=OnTheGas;18590239]Oh yes, thank you for the correction!
So therefore the only thing disproving Stu's point would be that the Michelin engineers, and team engineers, examined all the tires in question, and found that they were not damaged (from punctures, cuts, etc.), and were either [B]failed[/B] at the sidewall / tread joint (Zonta's and Ralfie's tires), or were in the [B]process of failing[/B] (the tires off all the other Michelin runners, w/the exception of McLaren & Renault). That info is found in the [URL="http://www.autosport.com/journal/index.html/id/17"]two articles[/URL] that I referenced previously, as well possibly others there.
So Stu, not to pick on you here, but please help us understand. If simply running higher pressures would have solved the problem w/the Michelin tires, then why did the teams not race? Air pressure is a simple, and normal, adjustment.[/QUOTE]
Please read my original statement, I made it clear there. The teams didn't do it because they wanted to make a point to the FIA how required they were. They didn't run at Indy because they wanted more money, and more say in post 2007 F1. Remember, the GPMA still existed then and the threat of a breakaway series still was there (and both sides new it would destroy both of them.) With the increased pressures, the teams would have had to pit, so their ability to run good strategys would have been low. They also knew that none of the Bridgestone teams had any chance of really exploiting a win, so losing a race off of a "legitament" issue wasn't a big issue.
So therefore the only thing disproving Stu's point would be that the Michelin engineers, and team engineers, examined all the tires in question, and found that they were not damaged (from punctures, cuts, etc.), and were either [B]failed[/B] at the sidewall / tread joint (Zonta's and Ralfie's tires), or were in the [B]process of failing[/B] (the tires off all the other Michelin runners, w/the exception of McLaren & Renault). That info is found in the [URL="http://www.autosport.com/journal/index.html/id/17"]two articles[/URL] that I referenced previously, as well possibly others there.
So Stu, not to pick on you here, but please help us understand. If simply running higher pressures would have solved the problem w/the Michelin tires, then why did the teams not race? Air pressure is a simple, and normal, adjustment.[/QUOTE]
Please read my original statement, I made it clear there. The teams didn't do it because they wanted to make a point to the FIA how required they were. They didn't run at Indy because they wanted more money, and more say in post 2007 F1. Remember, the GPMA still existed then and the threat of a breakaway series still was there (and both sides new it would destroy both of them.) With the increased pressures, the teams would have had to pit, so their ability to run good strategys would have been low. They also knew that none of the Bridgestone teams had any chance of really exploiting a win, so losing a race off of a "legitament" issue wasn't a big issue.
| parker/slc/gc8fan | 07-02-2007 07:46 PM |
I'm sorry I brought it up.
So, is Lewis Hamilton #1 at Mclaren yet?
So, is Lewis Hamilton #1 at Mclaren yet?
| KAX | 07-02-2007 08:34 PM |
i dont think there is a #1 and #2 at mclaren.
| OnTheGas | 07-02-2007 09:26 PM |
OK, now I understand...
�
�
[QUOTE=StuBeck;18593346]Please read my original statement, I made it clear there...[/QUOTE]OK, so I went back to [URL="http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18575642&postcount=1997"]your original statement[/URL]. If it was clear, folks wouldn't be asking you for your sources, and to explain your argument. That argument, or theory, or whatever, it is that you posted, it is really pretty far out there... ("main stream press" in F1?) :huh: :confused: Here's a hint, if folks ask what your sources are for something that you say is "out in the open", then it is time to either find, and share the info upon which you've built your argument, or to re-examine the thinking underlies your opinion. Which you have yet to do.
Good luck!
Good luck!
| OnTheGas | 07-02-2007 09:28 PM |
[QUOTE=artkevin;18592639]Again, I agree with you. My point was just that the picture neither proved nor disproved Stu's point.[/QUOTE]Yes, yes, I understood. And well done, too, btw! Again, thank you!
So, I'm sorry if I was confusing in my post... I wasn't criticizing you... I was criticizing Stu's point.
So, I'm sorry if I was confusing in my post... I wasn't criticizing you... I was criticizing Stu's point.
| OnTheGas | 07-02-2007 09:29 PM |
[QUOTE=parker/slc/gc8fan;18593461]I'm sorry I brought it up...[/QUOTE]My apologies to everyone here. I didn't realize...
| REX8 | 07-02-2007 09:54 PM |
[QUOTE=parker/slc/gc8fan;18584705]
[IMG]http://www.vasanth.in/content/binary/1782256506__CDG_graphic_thumb.jpg[/IMG]
To clarify, the air turbulence behind a car being created by the vast amount of aero work on the cars in the last ten years causes a car following closely behind to lose alot of it dowforce therefore costing it performance needed to pass.
[IMG]http://www.vasanth.in/content/binary/1306371943__CDG_Air_Flow_graphic_thumb1.jpg[/IMG]
[URL="http://www.vasanth.in/2005/10/24/SplitFrontWingIn2007.aspx"]source link[/URL]
.[/QUOTE]
^^^That's out of this months Racecar Engineering IIRC. Pretty good writeup on it. Great mag btw...
[IMG]http://www.vasanth.in/content/binary/1782256506__CDG_graphic_thumb.jpg[/IMG]
To clarify, the air turbulence behind a car being created by the vast amount of aero work on the cars in the last ten years causes a car following closely behind to lose alot of it dowforce therefore costing it performance needed to pass.
[IMG]http://www.vasanth.in/content/binary/1306371943__CDG_Air_Flow_graphic_thumb1.jpg[/IMG]
[URL="http://www.vasanth.in/2005/10/24/SplitFrontWingIn2007.aspx"]source link[/URL]
.[/QUOTE]
^^^That's out of this months Racecar Engineering IIRC. Pretty good writeup on it. Great mag btw...
| parker/slc/gc8fan | 07-03-2007 12:51 AM |
I assume your reffering to the lower image. If you ask me, it isn't good enough. Sure it doesn't show what speed this test is done at, but I think that is irelevant.
No wings would be better.
Can anyone imagine how excited Jackie Stewart would be?
No wings would be better.
Can anyone imagine how excited Jackie Stewart would be?
| artkevin | 07-03-2007 01:42 AM |
[QUOTE=KAX;18593847]i dont think there is a #1 and #2 at mclaren.[/QUOTE]
Found them! :D
#1
[IMG]http://images.gpupdate.net/large/76066.jpg[/IMG]
#2
[IMG]http://images.gpupdate.net/large/78014.jpg[/IMG]
OTG-Glad we're on the same page. ;)
Found them! :D
#1
[IMG]http://images.gpupdate.net/large/76066.jpg[/IMG]
#2
[IMG]http://images.gpupdate.net/large/78014.jpg[/IMG]
OTG-Glad we're on the same page. ;)
| StuBeck | 07-03-2007 07:32 AM |
[QUOTE=OnTheGas;18594316]OK, so I went back to [URL="http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18575642&postcount=1997"]your original statement[/URL]. If it was clear, folks wouldn't be asking you for your sources, and to explain your argument. That argument, or theory, or whatever, it is that you posted, it is really pretty far out there... ("main stream press" in F1?) :huh: :confused: Here's a hint, if folks ask what your sources are for something that you say is "out in the open", then it is time to either find, and share the info upon which you've built your argument, or to re-examine the thinking underlies your opinion. Which you have yet to do.
Good luck![/QUOTE]
[b]I said in the original comment that it was a political decision not to run. They could have added more air pressure, and not had the tyres fall apart like they did. THAT IS IT!!!!!! [/b] I don't see how thats confusing. Sorry that I made a spelling mistake as well. I've said that I couldn't find my source (Peter Windsor said it after the Turkish GP, but I could not find any video about it and gave up.)
I have rethought my opinion too. Have you not been reading what I've been saying? I originally came up with the idea that the tyres were hitting the rear wing, when evidence came out against this I backed off. I still believe itss because of the lower air pressures they ran, and I've made that clear the entire time.
And please do not be so condescending, I understand how to make an argument, if you don't agree with me, that is fine, but don't make a statement trying to be helpful while also inferring I'm an idiot.
I'm done with this discussion. Its obvious we both have our own views, and that we are having issues discussing these views. We're not getting any closer to agreeing with each other, so there is no point in going any further.
Good luck![/QUOTE]
[b]I said in the original comment that it was a political decision not to run. They could have added more air pressure, and not had the tyres fall apart like they did. THAT IS IT!!!!!! [/b] I don't see how thats confusing. Sorry that I made a spelling mistake as well. I've said that I couldn't find my source (Peter Windsor said it after the Turkish GP, but I could not find any video about it and gave up.)
I have rethought my opinion too. Have you not been reading what I've been saying? I originally came up with the idea that the tyres were hitting the rear wing, when evidence came out against this I backed off. I still believe itss because of the lower air pressures they ran, and I've made that clear the entire time.
And please do not be so condescending, I understand how to make an argument, if you don't agree with me, that is fine, but don't make a statement trying to be helpful while also inferring I'm an idiot.
I'm done with this discussion. Its obvious we both have our own views, and that we are having issues discussing these views. We're not getting any closer to agreeing with each other, so there is no point in going any further.
| StuBeck | 07-03-2007 08:03 AM |
[quote]Stepney dismissed by Ferrari
By Jonathan Noble Tuesday, July 3rd 2007, 08:52 GMT
Nigel Stepney, the engineer at the centre of a legal enquiry over possible sabotage at Ferrari, has now been dismissed by the Maranello team.
The Ferrari stalwart, who was viewed as one of the key figures in the resurrection of the Italian outfit's fortunes over the past decade, is under investigation by the Modena district attorney amid claims he sabotaged the Ferrari cars prior to the Monaco Grand Prix.
The exact details of the case are not known, but it is understood that it revolves around a tampering with the fuel tanks on the F2007s before they were shipped to Monte Carlo for May's race.
Although those claims have been denied by Stepney and his lawyer, Ferrari have now completed their internal investigation into the matter and have dismissed him. This took place in Stepney's absence, because he is currently away on holiday in the Philippines.
A Ferrari spokesman confirmed to autosport.com: "An internal disciplinary procedure has been completed and Nigel Stepney is no longer an employee of Ferrari."
Stepney told The Sunday Times recently that he was convinced of his innocence and confident he would be cleared of all charges.
"I have confidence I'll be cleared by the legal process that is now taking place," he said.
"It is just part of a dirty tricks campaign and everything is in the hands of my lawyer, so we'll wait and see what happens."
Stepney has made no secret of the fact that that he has been looking at leaving Ferrari, and he recently held talks with Honda about a move to the Brackley-based team.
The lawyer who is representing Stepney, Sonia Bartolini, said recently that the Briton would likely hold a press conference on his return to prove his innocence. He is due back in Italy later this week. [/quote]
[url]http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/60448[/url]
This is interesting, I'm sure he hasn't done much since then...but could what he "did" have caused McLaren's resurgence and now that they've gotten past it caused Ferrari's surge?
By Jonathan Noble Tuesday, July 3rd 2007, 08:52 GMT
Nigel Stepney, the engineer at the centre of a legal enquiry over possible sabotage at Ferrari, has now been dismissed by the Maranello team.
The Ferrari stalwart, who was viewed as one of the key figures in the resurrection of the Italian outfit's fortunes over the past decade, is under investigation by the Modena district attorney amid claims he sabotaged the Ferrari cars prior to the Monaco Grand Prix.
The exact details of the case are not known, but it is understood that it revolves around a tampering with the fuel tanks on the F2007s before they were shipped to Monte Carlo for May's race.
Although those claims have been denied by Stepney and his lawyer, Ferrari have now completed their internal investigation into the matter and have dismissed him. This took place in Stepney's absence, because he is currently away on holiday in the Philippines.
A Ferrari spokesman confirmed to autosport.com: "An internal disciplinary procedure has been completed and Nigel Stepney is no longer an employee of Ferrari."
Stepney told The Sunday Times recently that he was convinced of his innocence and confident he would be cleared of all charges.
"I have confidence I'll be cleared by the legal process that is now taking place," he said.
"It is just part of a dirty tricks campaign and everything is in the hands of my lawyer, so we'll wait and see what happens."
Stepney has made no secret of the fact that that he has been looking at leaving Ferrari, and he recently held talks with Honda about a move to the Brackley-based team.
The lawyer who is representing Stepney, Sonia Bartolini, said recently that the Briton would likely hold a press conference on his return to prove his innocence. He is due back in Italy later this week. [/quote]
[url]http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/60448[/url]
This is interesting, I'm sure he hasn't done much since then...but could what he "did" have caused McLaren's resurgence and now that they've gotten past it caused Ferrari's surge?
| StuBeck | 07-03-2007 12:36 PM |
[quote]McLaren employee suspected of espionage
By Jonathan Noble Tuesday, July 3rd 2007, 16:18 GMT
McLaren have suspended a senior member of their staff amid suspicions that he unlawfully obtained technical information belonging to rivals Ferrari.
With former Ferrari engineer Nigel Stepney currently at the centre of a legal enquiry about sabotage of Ferrari's cars prior to the Monaco Grand Prix, there had also been talk of a possible espionage investigation.
That scenario was confirmed on Tuesday when McLaren issued a statement revealing that a member of their staff is now investigated by Ferrari as possibly obtaining technical secrets from a Ferrari employee.
It has not been clarified yet, however, whether or not this affair relates specifically to Stepney.
McLaren have said they will cooperate with the investigation and have suspended their unidentified member of staff while that process is ongoing.
"McLaren became aware on [today] that a senior member of its technical organisation was the subject of a Ferrari investigation regarding the receipt of technical information.
"The team has learnt that this individual had personally received a package of technical information from a Ferrari employee at the end of April.
"Whilst McLaren has no involvement in the matter and condemns such actions, we will fully cooperate with any investigation.
"The individual has, in the meanwhile, been suspended by the company pending a full and proper investigation of the matter.
"No further comment will be made."
Stepney has maintained his innocence of all charges, and has vowed to prove his innocence when he returns from a mid-season holiday later this week.
Ferrari confirmed this morning that they had dismissed Stepney following an internal investigation. [/quote]
Sounds like Stephney actually stole something, not that he tampered with the car.
By Jonathan Noble Tuesday, July 3rd 2007, 16:18 GMT
McLaren have suspended a senior member of their staff amid suspicions that he unlawfully obtained technical information belonging to rivals Ferrari.
With former Ferrari engineer Nigel Stepney currently at the centre of a legal enquiry about sabotage of Ferrari's cars prior to the Monaco Grand Prix, there had also been talk of a possible espionage investigation.
That scenario was confirmed on Tuesday when McLaren issued a statement revealing that a member of their staff is now investigated by Ferrari as possibly obtaining technical secrets from a Ferrari employee.
It has not been clarified yet, however, whether or not this affair relates specifically to Stepney.
McLaren have said they will cooperate with the investigation and have suspended their unidentified member of staff while that process is ongoing.
"McLaren became aware on [today] that a senior member of its technical organisation was the subject of a Ferrari investigation regarding the receipt of technical information.
"The team has learnt that this individual had personally received a package of technical information from a Ferrari employee at the end of April.
"Whilst McLaren has no involvement in the matter and condemns such actions, we will fully cooperate with any investigation.
"The individual has, in the meanwhile, been suspended by the company pending a full and proper investigation of the matter.
"No further comment will be made."
Stepney has maintained his innocence of all charges, and has vowed to prove his innocence when he returns from a mid-season holiday later this week.
Ferrari confirmed this morning that they had dismissed Stepney following an internal investigation. [/quote]
Sounds like Stephney actually stole something, not that he tampered with the car.
| Hawkeye | 07-03-2007 12:53 PM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck;18599967]
Sounds like Stephney actually stole something, not that he tampered with the car.[/QUOTE]
ESPN is reporting that Ferrari turned over a powder found on the fuel tank for the investigation.
[url]http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/news/story?seriesId=6&id=2924507[/url]
[quote]
MARANELLO, Italy -- Ferrari fired a British technician following an internal investigation into allegations of attempted sabotage before the Monaco Grand Prix.
"All I can say is that Nigel Stepney is no longer our employee," Ferrari spokesman Luca Colajanni said Tuesday.
The Italian Formula One team also filed a criminal complaint against Stepney, who was responsible for team performance.
A mysterious powder reportedly was found on the gas tanks of Felipe Massa's and Kimi Raikkonen's cars on May 21, six days before the Monaco race.
The parts were replaced before the race and the powder was sent to the police to be examined.
Massa finished third in the race and Raikkonen was eighth.
Stepney reportedly was disappointed that he was not promoted to technical director when Ross Brawn left the team after last season. Stepney criticized Ferrari in an interview last month with a British newspaper and the team responded by not sending him to any more races.
Raikkonen and Massa finished first and second in the French Grand Prix on Sunday to cut McLaren-Mercedes' lead to 25 points in the team standings after eight of 17 races this season.
McLaren drivers Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso are 1-2 in the driver's standings, while Massa and Raikkonen are third and fourth.
[/quote]
Sounds like Stephney actually stole something, not that he tampered with the car.[/QUOTE]
ESPN is reporting that Ferrari turned over a powder found on the fuel tank for the investigation.
[url]http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/news/story?seriesId=6&id=2924507[/url]
[quote]
MARANELLO, Italy -- Ferrari fired a British technician following an internal investigation into allegations of attempted sabotage before the Monaco Grand Prix.
"All I can say is that Nigel Stepney is no longer our employee," Ferrari spokesman Luca Colajanni said Tuesday.
The Italian Formula One team also filed a criminal complaint against Stepney, who was responsible for team performance.
A mysterious powder reportedly was found on the gas tanks of Felipe Massa's and Kimi Raikkonen's cars on May 21, six days before the Monaco race.
The parts were replaced before the race and the powder was sent to the police to be examined.
Massa finished third in the race and Raikkonen was eighth.
Stepney reportedly was disappointed that he was not promoted to technical director when Ross Brawn left the team after last season. Stepney criticized Ferrari in an interview last month with a British newspaper and the team responded by not sending him to any more races.
Raikkonen and Massa finished first and second in the French Grand Prix on Sunday to cut McLaren-Mercedes' lead to 25 points in the team standings after eight of 17 races this season.
McLaren drivers Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso are 1-2 in the driver's standings, while Massa and Raikkonen are third and fourth.
[/quote]
| StuBeck | 07-03-2007 02:22 PM |
That has been the ongoing rumor, unless the two events are not connected (which is entirely possible) that is where I was connecting them.
| StuBeck | 07-03-2007 03:21 PM |
[Quote]McLaren suspect is Mike Coughlan
By Jonathan Noble and Biranit Goren Tuesday, July 3rd 2007, 18:44 GMT
Mike CoughlanMike Coughlan, McLaren's chief designer, is the senior engineer suspected of espionage against Ferrari, autosport.com has learned.
The 48-year-old Briton is suspected of unlawfully obtaining technical material belonging to Ferrari in collaboration with Ferrari's Nigel Stepney.
In a search conducted by the police at Coughlan's house today, documents allegedly belonging to Ferrari were found, leading McLaren to suspend him while Ferrari said they reserve the right to pursue further legal action.
Coughlan joined McLaren as chief designer in August 2002 after four years with the Arrows F1 team. His initial role there was chief designer, and in the last couple of years at Arrows he was promoted to technical director.
Coughlan was also head of the design office at Benetton in 1991, and later in his career worked for the Ferrari Design and Development office in England. He also worked as race engineer at Tyrrell in the mid-1990s. [/quote]
Guess I was wrong, like usual :)
By Jonathan Noble and Biranit Goren Tuesday, July 3rd 2007, 18:44 GMT
Mike CoughlanMike Coughlan, McLaren's chief designer, is the senior engineer suspected of espionage against Ferrari, autosport.com has learned.
The 48-year-old Briton is suspected of unlawfully obtaining technical material belonging to Ferrari in collaboration with Ferrari's Nigel Stepney.
In a search conducted by the police at Coughlan's house today, documents allegedly belonging to Ferrari were found, leading McLaren to suspend him while Ferrari said they reserve the right to pursue further legal action.
Coughlan joined McLaren as chief designer in August 2002 after four years with the Arrows F1 team. His initial role there was chief designer, and in the last couple of years at Arrows he was promoted to technical director.
Coughlan was also head of the design office at Benetton in 1991, and later in his career worked for the Ferrari Design and Development office in England. He also worked as race engineer at Tyrrell in the mid-1990s. [/quote]
Guess I was wrong, like usual :)
| Wr4wrX | 07-03-2007 10:10 PM |
On a lighter note from Stepneygate, McLaren's new motorhome takes form at Silverstone. I wonder if Lord Norman Foster, the architect for the McLaren Technology Centre, had any influence.
[IMG]http://www.itv-f1.com/ImageLibrary/43398_2.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.itv-f1.com/ImageLibrary/43397_2.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.itv-f1.com/ImageLibrary/43395_2.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.itv-f1.com/ImageLibrary/43393_2.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.itv-f1.com/ImageLibrary/43398_2.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.itv-f1.com/ImageLibrary/43397_2.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.itv-f1.com/ImageLibrary/43395_2.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.itv-f1.com/ImageLibrary/43393_2.jpg[/IMG]
| rupertberr | 07-03-2007 10:56 PM |
Stepneygate Saga
�
�
Stepneygate Saga
[QUOTE]Analysis: the remarkable Stepneygate saga
By Adam Cooper Tuesday, July 3rd 2007, 23:03 GMT
'Stepneygate' has sent shock waves through Formula One in recent days, and Tuesday's news that a senior McLaren employee is involved in obtaining stolen documents belonging to Ferrari has added yet another dimension to the story.
Ferrari and McLaren have had a highly charged rivalry for three decades now, but this latest episode is perhaps the strangest yet.
The 'Dream Team' Disbanded
Nigel Stepney began his motorsport career in the 1970s, when he worked for the Broadspeed touring car team, before moving through stints at Shadow and Lotus - where he worked with Ayrton Senna.
From 1988 to 1992 he was at Benetton as chief mechanic. He earned a reputation as a good organiser who paid attention to detail and kept the troops in line. That was just what Ferrari needed when he was head-hunted by former Benetton colleague John Barnard in 1993, shortly before Jean Todt joined the Italian team.
He knew Michael Schumacher, Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne in his time at Benetton, so when they came to Maranello in 1996 and 1997, it was a reuniting of the old gang.
Through the Schumacher glory years, Stepney received a lot of the credit for getting the team on track, especially in terms of reliability and improved preparation. He also became better known after Schumacher ran him over during a pitstop in the 2000 Spanish Grand Prix; after that incident, he gave the lollipop job to someone else...
His job title changed from that of chief mechanic to that of race technical manager. He was clearly a key part of the 'Dream Team', and indeed on occasion he went on to the podium to represent Ferrari and pick up the constructors' trophy.
There was no reason to suspect he was anything but very happy at Ferrari until some time last year, when in conversation he casually mentioned that he was hoping to switch to a factory-based job in 2008.
Schumacher was about to announce his retirement, and Brawn was going on a sabbatical. Like them, Stepney used up a lot of energy through those championship-chasing years, and presumably he quite liked the idea of slowing down, thinking about new challenges.
But he also made it clear that with Schumacher not driving, and even more importantly with Brawn gone, the team would no longer be the same. In essence, he wasn't too happy about being involved in something that potentially was going to go downhill with a new regime in charge.
In fact, Stepney had quite a colourful way of expressing his feeling at the time, and his candour was quite surprising.
Then, during the winter, Stepney made his feeling publicly known in an interview with Autosport magazine, much to Ferrari's displeasure.
House Search at Casa Stepney
By the time Formula One arrived at Melbourne for the opening race of the season, there was no sign of Stepney, whose new factory role was head of team performance development.
This followed by rumours that Stepney was contemplating a move to Honda - entirely logical, considering he is a Briton who presumably always fancied moving back home (throughout his Ferrari years, Brawn always maintained a double life, with a house in the UK). With Brawn's name also linked to Honda, it seemed plausible that both men could end up there.
Then, a couple of weeks ago, came the bombshell news that Stepney was under criminal investigation in Italy, following action taken by Ferrari, and that he had 'disappeared' abroad.
All sorts of mixed messages came out in the days that followed. Key among them was talk of a white powder being found in or around the Ferrari F2007 fuel tank before the Monaco Grand Prix, and the suggestion therefore Stepney tried to sabotage the cars.
The police duly raided the Briton's house in Italy, and it was reported that they had taken away a canister, which we could only presume was related to the aforementioned white powder.
Things took a different turn on June 24, when the Sunday Times reported Stepney's view. Journalist Jane Nottage, who knows Stepney well and has written an officially sanctioned book about the inner workings of Ferrari, called him in the Philippines, where he was holidaying with his girlfriend and their child.
"I have confidence that I'll be cleared by the legal process that is now taking place," he told her. "It is just part of a dirty tricks campaign and everything is in the hands of my lawyer, so we'll wait and see what happens.
"I am on a planned holiday with Ash and our baby. Why would anyone say I am not contactable? I booked the flights through the Ferrari travel office. They know where I am."
In a further twist, a Ferrari spokesman told autosport.com at Magny-Cours last weekend that this last statement was not true, and indeed, Stepney was not even on an official leave.
Meanwhile, the rumours continued to fly around, and bits of information come out in dribs and drabs. I've been told that the police officers who visited Casa Nigel didn't just recover that canister, but other items of interest, reportedly including a couple of steering wheels that should not have been there.
Sources have also suggested that Stepney was allegedly seen behaving suspiciously around the cars in the factory at a time when he thought he was alone, and/or that there is incriminating CCTV footage.
In addition to the white powder business, there were also rumours of some form of industrial espionage.
It seemed obvious to assume that any such behaviour might involve a potential future employer such as Honda, but there was a whisper last weekend that McLaren were the recipient.
Sabotaging the cars, helping McLaren by passing on secrets... The story got weirder and weirder. What was Stepney supposedly up to?
The only conclusion a casual observer could make was that some internal strife at Maranello, possibly involving Stepney not being allowed contractually to make his move to Honda, had caused him to extract some sort or revenge.
House Search at Fort Coughlan
However, the story took another serious turn on Tuesday morning when Ferrari revealed that Stepney had been sacked.
And, that afternoon brought the stunning news that McLaren were indeed in the loop a statement from the Woking outfit revealing "senior member of [McLaren's] technical organisation was subject of a Ferrari investigation regarding the receipt of technical information."
McLaren's statement further revealed that this senior staff member " had personally received a package of technical information from a Ferrari employee at the end of April."
McLaren concluded by saying the individual has been suspended by the company, pending a full investigation.
Inevitably there was considerable interest in just who might be involved at Woking, and logic suggested it was someone at McLaren who has worked with Stepney in the past. There was certainly more than one high profile name that fitted that bill.
After that came a statement from Ferrari, which confirmed they have instigated legal proceedings against Stepney and a McLaren employee, in both Italy and England.
It didn't take long for it to emerge that the McLaren man under investigation was chief designer Mike Coughlan.
He worked with Stepney at Benetton and, from 1993 to 1998, at Ferrari - although Coughlan was mostly at John Barnard's Surrey base rather than in Maranello.
On Tuesday, Coughlan's house was visited by the UK police, and apparently Ferrari documents were found there.
Clearly the saga has caused some disruption at Ferrari, but the fact that this affair has now spread to McLaren as well must be big relief to the Maranello team, as some of the negative attention has been diverted.
If, as must now be considered possible, Coughlan does not return to work once the investigation is complete, he will leave a hole in McLaren's staff that has to be filled.
McLaren may have strength in depth, but losing the chief designer in the middle of a title campaign - and just as serious work gets going on the 2008 car - is not exactly ideal.
Inevitably, too, some would also be very happy for the fans to draw the conclusion that McLaren's turnaround in form after Spain was in some way related to the information that was passed on, although clearly there is no evidence that this is the case.
Indeed, it remains unknown if the alleged information was actually used by Coughlan in an attempt to benefit McLaren, or if indeed it was of any value to a team running a completely different car.
The other possibility is that the information pertained to something that Ferrari were doing that was of potential interest to McLaren - advanced wing design and flexing bodywork, for example.
The Gathering Storm
Ferrari interestingly made a point of ending their statement on Tuesday by saying the team "reserve the right to consider all implications, be they criminal, [B]civil or of any other nature[/B], according to the applicable laws." (emphasis added)
The last time Ferrari made a similar threat was in 2003, after the FIA found the tread width of Michelin tyres to be outside the legal width - following a protest by Ferrari. Back then, Ferrari also "reserved the right" to challenge race results after the season was over, should they deem it necessary.
Ferrari never pursued legal action in 2003 - the team, after all, won both titles that season - but Maranello's suggestion that some teams may not have won fairly was made very clear.
This time around, McLaren were unequivocal in their Tuesday statement that 'Stepneygate' involves one individual inthe team, and not McLaren.
"Whilst McLaren has no involvement in the matter and condemns such actions, we will fully cooperate with any investigation," the team said, and there is no reason to question this. For all his shortcomings, Ron Dennis's integrity has never been at doubt.
Either way, though, this really is a sorry saga that will overshadow the British team's widely anticipated homecoming Grand Prix at Silverstone this weekend.
It's also unclear how all this affects Ross Brawn and any plans he has to return to Maranello.
The former technical direct is very close to Stepney, but on the other hand he is a Ferrari man to the core, and if there has been any wrongdoing, one presumes he will side with the team.
So now we wait to find out not only what Stepney has to say when he returns to Europe, but also what happens at McLaren.
It remains to be seen what the FIA, too, will do - if at all - in this affair, and what are the legal implications for Stepney, Coughlan, Ferrari and McLaren.
Recently, two former Ferrari employees were found guilty of stealing Ferrari secrets and taking them to Toyota.
And, considering that that affair took four years to reach its court resolution, it's safe to say that 'Stepneygate' has only just begun.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Analysis: the remarkable Stepneygate saga
By Adam Cooper Tuesday, July 3rd 2007, 23:03 GMT
'Stepneygate' has sent shock waves through Formula One in recent days, and Tuesday's news that a senior McLaren employee is involved in obtaining stolen documents belonging to Ferrari has added yet another dimension to the story.
Ferrari and McLaren have had a highly charged rivalry for three decades now, but this latest episode is perhaps the strangest yet.
The 'Dream Team' Disbanded
Nigel Stepney began his motorsport career in the 1970s, when he worked for the Broadspeed touring car team, before moving through stints at Shadow and Lotus - where he worked with Ayrton Senna.
From 1988 to 1992 he was at Benetton as chief mechanic. He earned a reputation as a good organiser who paid attention to detail and kept the troops in line. That was just what Ferrari needed when he was head-hunted by former Benetton colleague John Barnard in 1993, shortly before Jean Todt joined the Italian team.
He knew Michael Schumacher, Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne in his time at Benetton, so when they came to Maranello in 1996 and 1997, it was a reuniting of the old gang.
Through the Schumacher glory years, Stepney received a lot of the credit for getting the team on track, especially in terms of reliability and improved preparation. He also became better known after Schumacher ran him over during a pitstop in the 2000 Spanish Grand Prix; after that incident, he gave the lollipop job to someone else...
His job title changed from that of chief mechanic to that of race technical manager. He was clearly a key part of the 'Dream Team', and indeed on occasion he went on to the podium to represent Ferrari and pick up the constructors' trophy.
There was no reason to suspect he was anything but very happy at Ferrari until some time last year, when in conversation he casually mentioned that he was hoping to switch to a factory-based job in 2008.
Schumacher was about to announce his retirement, and Brawn was going on a sabbatical. Like them, Stepney used up a lot of energy through those championship-chasing years, and presumably he quite liked the idea of slowing down, thinking about new challenges.
But he also made it clear that with Schumacher not driving, and even more importantly with Brawn gone, the team would no longer be the same. In essence, he wasn't too happy about being involved in something that potentially was going to go downhill with a new regime in charge.
In fact, Stepney had quite a colourful way of expressing his feeling at the time, and his candour was quite surprising.
Then, during the winter, Stepney made his feeling publicly known in an interview with Autosport magazine, much to Ferrari's displeasure.
House Search at Casa Stepney
By the time Formula One arrived at Melbourne for the opening race of the season, there was no sign of Stepney, whose new factory role was head of team performance development.
This followed by rumours that Stepney was contemplating a move to Honda - entirely logical, considering he is a Briton who presumably always fancied moving back home (throughout his Ferrari years, Brawn always maintained a double life, with a house in the UK). With Brawn's name also linked to Honda, it seemed plausible that both men could end up there.
Then, a couple of weeks ago, came the bombshell news that Stepney was under criminal investigation in Italy, following action taken by Ferrari, and that he had 'disappeared' abroad.
All sorts of mixed messages came out in the days that followed. Key among them was talk of a white powder being found in or around the Ferrari F2007 fuel tank before the Monaco Grand Prix, and the suggestion therefore Stepney tried to sabotage the cars.
The police duly raided the Briton's house in Italy, and it was reported that they had taken away a canister, which we could only presume was related to the aforementioned white powder.
Things took a different turn on June 24, when the Sunday Times reported Stepney's view. Journalist Jane Nottage, who knows Stepney well and has written an officially sanctioned book about the inner workings of Ferrari, called him in the Philippines, where he was holidaying with his girlfriend and their child.
"I have confidence that I'll be cleared by the legal process that is now taking place," he told her. "It is just part of a dirty tricks campaign and everything is in the hands of my lawyer, so we'll wait and see what happens.
"I am on a planned holiday with Ash and our baby. Why would anyone say I am not contactable? I booked the flights through the Ferrari travel office. They know where I am."
In a further twist, a Ferrari spokesman told autosport.com at Magny-Cours last weekend that this last statement was not true, and indeed, Stepney was not even on an official leave.
Meanwhile, the rumours continued to fly around, and bits of information come out in dribs and drabs. I've been told that the police officers who visited Casa Nigel didn't just recover that canister, but other items of interest, reportedly including a couple of steering wheels that should not have been there.
Sources have also suggested that Stepney was allegedly seen behaving suspiciously around the cars in the factory at a time when he thought he was alone, and/or that there is incriminating CCTV footage.
In addition to the white powder business, there were also rumours of some form of industrial espionage.
It seemed obvious to assume that any such behaviour might involve a potential future employer such as Honda, but there was a whisper last weekend that McLaren were the recipient.
Sabotaging the cars, helping McLaren by passing on secrets... The story got weirder and weirder. What was Stepney supposedly up to?
The only conclusion a casual observer could make was that some internal strife at Maranello, possibly involving Stepney not being allowed contractually to make his move to Honda, had caused him to extract some sort or revenge.
House Search at Fort Coughlan
However, the story took another serious turn on Tuesday morning when Ferrari revealed that Stepney had been sacked.
And, that afternoon brought the stunning news that McLaren were indeed in the loop a statement from the Woking outfit revealing "senior member of [McLaren's] technical organisation was subject of a Ferrari investigation regarding the receipt of technical information."
McLaren's statement further revealed that this senior staff member " had personally received a package of technical information from a Ferrari employee at the end of April."
McLaren concluded by saying the individual has been suspended by the company, pending a full investigation.
Inevitably there was considerable interest in just who might be involved at Woking, and logic suggested it was someone at McLaren who has worked with Stepney in the past. There was certainly more than one high profile name that fitted that bill.
After that came a statement from Ferrari, which confirmed they have instigated legal proceedings against Stepney and a McLaren employee, in both Italy and England.
It didn't take long for it to emerge that the McLaren man under investigation was chief designer Mike Coughlan.
He worked with Stepney at Benetton and, from 1993 to 1998, at Ferrari - although Coughlan was mostly at John Barnard's Surrey base rather than in Maranello.
On Tuesday, Coughlan's house was visited by the UK police, and apparently Ferrari documents were found there.
Clearly the saga has caused some disruption at Ferrari, but the fact that this affair has now spread to McLaren as well must be big relief to the Maranello team, as some of the negative attention has been diverted.
If, as must now be considered possible, Coughlan does not return to work once the investigation is complete, he will leave a hole in McLaren's staff that has to be filled.
McLaren may have strength in depth, but losing the chief designer in the middle of a title campaign - and just as serious work gets going on the 2008 car - is not exactly ideal.
Inevitably, too, some would also be very happy for the fans to draw the conclusion that McLaren's turnaround in form after Spain was in some way related to the information that was passed on, although clearly there is no evidence that this is the case.
Indeed, it remains unknown if the alleged information was actually used by Coughlan in an attempt to benefit McLaren, or if indeed it was of any value to a team running a completely different car.
The other possibility is that the information pertained to something that Ferrari were doing that was of potential interest to McLaren - advanced wing design and flexing bodywork, for example.
The Gathering Storm
Ferrari interestingly made a point of ending their statement on Tuesday by saying the team "reserve the right to consider all implications, be they criminal, [B]civil or of any other nature[/B], according to the applicable laws." (emphasis added)
The last time Ferrari made a similar threat was in 2003, after the FIA found the tread width of Michelin tyres to be outside the legal width - following a protest by Ferrari. Back then, Ferrari also "reserved the right" to challenge race results after the season was over, should they deem it necessary.
Ferrari never pursued legal action in 2003 - the team, after all, won both titles that season - but Maranello's suggestion that some teams may not have won fairly was made very clear.
This time around, McLaren were unequivocal in their Tuesday statement that 'Stepneygate' involves one individual inthe team, and not McLaren.
"Whilst McLaren has no involvement in the matter and condemns such actions, we will fully cooperate with any investigation," the team said, and there is no reason to question this. For all his shortcomings, Ron Dennis's integrity has never been at doubt.
Either way, though, this really is a sorry saga that will overshadow the British team's widely anticipated homecoming Grand Prix at Silverstone this weekend.
It's also unclear how all this affects Ross Brawn and any plans he has to return to Maranello.
The former technical direct is very close to Stepney, but on the other hand he is a Ferrari man to the core, and if there has been any wrongdoing, one presumes he will side with the team.
So now we wait to find out not only what Stepney has to say when he returns to Europe, but also what happens at McLaren.
It remains to be seen what the FIA, too, will do - if at all - in this affair, and what are the legal implications for Stepney, Coughlan, Ferrari and McLaren.
Recently, two former Ferrari employees were found guilty of stealing Ferrari secrets and taking them to Toyota.
And, considering that that affair took four years to reach its court resolution, it's safe to say that 'Stepneygate' has only just begun.[/QUOTE]
| parker/slc/gc8fan | 07-03-2007 11:15 PM |
Just when I thought we could actually talk about racing. :(
| wvallwheeldrive | 07-03-2007 11:54 PM |
Wow things are really getting weird now.
| Wr4wrX | 07-04-2007 03:36 AM |
I just watched some of the ITV pre-race show for the French Grand Prix and the commentators did a segment on the developing Stepneygate story. They made an important note that I haven't read or heard about elsewhere and that is it would have been very difficult for Stepney to have tampered with the fuel. ITV interviewed Spyker Technical Director, Mike Gascoyne, and he said it would have been exceedingly difficult for anybody to have sabotaged the fuel since the FIA constantly tests teams' fuel. Perhaps the mystery "white power" wasn't meant for the fuel, but just to gunk up other elements of the car(?). In any case, just a tidbit that I hadn't considered.
| KAX | 07-04-2007 04:46 AM |
[QUOTE=Wr4wrX;18607701]I just watched some of the ITV pre-race show for the French Grand Prix and the commentators did a segment on the developing Stepneygate story. They made an important note that I haven't read or heard about elsewhere and that is it would have been very difficult for Stepney to have tampered with the fuel. ITV interviewed Spyker Technical Director, Mike Gascoyne, and he said it would have been exceedingly difficult for anybody to have sabotaged the fuel since the FIA constantly tests teams' fuel. Perhaps the mystery "white power" wasn't meant for the fuel, but just to gunk up other elements of the car(?). In any case, just a tidbit that I hadn't considered.[/QUOTE]
I thought he was tampering with the tank, not the fuel itself.
I thought he was tampering with the tank, not the fuel itself.
| bemani | 07-04-2007 05:30 AM |
That's what I read also. The fuel tank.
[QUOTE=Wr4wrX;18605783]
[IMG]http://www.itv-f1.com/ImageLibrary/43393_2.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Quite impressive ...
Did they actually moved that from France or do they have a spare?
[QUOTE=Wr4wrX;18605783]
[IMG]http://www.itv-f1.com/ImageLibrary/43393_2.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Quite impressive ...
Did they actually moved that from France or do they have a spare?
| artkevin | 07-04-2007 11:58 AM |
[QUOTE=Wr4wrX;18607701] Perhaps the mystery[B] "white power"[/B] wasn't meant for the fuel, but just to gunk up other elements of the car(?). [/QUOTE]
Do you mean white powder? ;) Or are you trying to tell us something more personal?
This is the strangest case I have ever heard of in F1. It's really hard to believe that one team/employee would sabotage another.
Do you mean white powder? ;) Or are you trying to tell us something more personal?
This is the strangest case I have ever heard of in F1. It's really hard to believe that one team/employee would sabotage another.
| Wr4wrX | 07-04-2007 12:51 PM |
[QUOTE=artkevin;18609044]Do you mean white powder? ;) Or are you trying to tell us something more personal?[/QUOTE]
Hehehehe, oops. Yesterday was the first time in a long while since I'd been up for about 23 hours straight...what can I say? Or maybe it was a Freudian slip....
Hehehehe, oops. Yesterday was the first time in a long while since I'd been up for about 23 hours straight...what can I say? Or maybe it was a Freudian slip....
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét