Ferrari: Hamilton title would be tainted
Posted by mika19b
Luca shoudn't complain that hard, thanks to mclaren ferrari have won the constructors championship! 
Just because the drivers title seem to be looking out of reach he's shouting to make it less worthy, not that it helps though...
WYSIWYG / F1: Overtaking has become a strategy!
Just because the drivers title seem to be looking out of reach he's shouting to make it less worthy, not that it helps though...
WYSIWYG / F1: Overtaking has become a strategy!
Schedule 3 of the Concorde Agreement says
"A constructor is a person (including any incorporated or unincorporated body) who owns the intellectual property rights to the rolling chassis it currently races, and does not incorporate in such chassis any part designed or manufactured by any other constructor of F1 racing cars except for standard items of safety equipment, providing that nothing in the Schedule 3 shall prevent the use of an engine or gearbox manufactured by a person other than the constructor of the chassis."
From the Constructor's details of entry
"We, the Applicant, hereby confirm that we are a "constructor" within the meaning of schedule 3 of the 1998 Concorde Agreement."
And also includes the drivers (they are not entered separately from the constructors)
"ii) With the drivers referred to below which we nominate for the purpose of Articles 13.2e) & 19.1 of the Sporting Regulations
Driver of the first car [or*]................................................................................................................................................
Licence Number .................................................Issued By...................................................
Driver of the second car [or*] ........................................................................................................................
Licence Number .................................................Issued By...................................................
(tick only if applicable)
[ ]* We wish to nominate the name of the driver of the first car subsequent to this application. For this purpose we expressly agree to be bound by the provisions of Article 13.2e) of the Sporting Regulations.
[ ]* We wish to nominate the name of the driver of the second car subsequent to this application. For this purpose we expressly agree to be bound by the provisions of Article 13.2(e) of the Sporting Regulations."
Or put it this way, a driver can't compete for the WDC with a car that doesn't comply with the regulations.
Guess that makes the faggot 100% right.
"A constructor is a person (including any incorporated or unincorporated body) who owns the intellectual property rights to the rolling chassis it currently races, and does not incorporate in such chassis any part designed or manufactured by any other constructor of F1 racing cars except for standard items of safety equipment, providing that nothing in the Schedule 3 shall prevent the use of an engine or gearbox manufactured by a person other than the constructor of the chassis."
From the Constructor's details of entry
"We, the Applicant, hereby confirm that we are a "constructor" within the meaning of schedule 3 of the 1998 Concorde Agreement."
And also includes the drivers (they are not entered separately from the constructors)
"ii) With the drivers referred to below which we nominate for the purpose of Articles 13.2e) & 19.1 of the Sporting Regulations
Driver of the first car [or*]................................................................................................................................................
Licence Number .................................................Issued By...................................................
Driver of the second car [or*] ........................................................................................................................
Licence Number .................................................Issued By...................................................
(tick only if applicable)
[ ]* We wish to nominate the name of the driver of the first car subsequent to this application. For this purpose we expressly agree to be bound by the provisions of Article 13.2e) of the Sporting Regulations.
[ ]* We wish to nominate the name of the driver of the second car subsequent to this application. For this purpose we expressly agree to be bound by the provisions of Article 13.2(e) of the Sporting Regulations."
Or put it this way, a driver can't compete for the WDC with a car that doesn't comply with the regulations.
Guess that makes the faggot 100% right.
But there is no proof that the McLaren is using intellectual property from another car.
RedSam
Winner: Not the Nickv Comment of the Year 2009
Due to the voting system in Germany, Governments are always made up of coalitions of different parties. At the last election, an almost unprecidented result saw the CDU/CSU (rough equivilant of the Conservatives) go into Government with the SPD (rough equivilant of Labour)
Winner: Not the Nickv Comment of the Year 2009
Due to the voting system in Germany, Governments are always made up of coalitions of different parties. At the last election, an almost unprecidented result saw the CDU/CSU (rough equivilant of the Conservatives) go into Government with the SPD (rough equivilant of Labour)
"So this faggot di montezemolo is 100% wrong, even if Maccas are 100% Ferrari."
Anyway i guess i should change my closing line to
"Guess that makes the faggot 100% right, if the suspicions are proven to be true.
Anyway i guess i should change my closing line to
"Guess that makes the faggot 100% right, if the suspicions are proven to be true.
so we must wait for the outcome of any checks of the 2008 McLaren design plans to see if any intellectual property went into any Macca parts for next season.
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
well i am not gone talk about if the mclaren are guilty or not, but the FIA says that they are, so if mclaren are innocent they should appeal the decision and prove it and clean the mclaren name (and don't tell me that they refuse to appeal becouse they are looking for the good of the sport, coz if they are really, they shouldn't start a same case against renault). so anyway imagine if we are in a horse racing and the one of the horses had take's some drugs by his owner or the trainer, then the referees find out, should they only punish the horse by forcing him to lose his championship points(and he still can race but he cann't score anymore), or should they punish both the horse and the rider
kinda of weird ex. but u judge it.
speed freak
kinda of weird ex. but u judge it.
Another reason to dislike Ferrari. They have won the championship by the ruling bodies decision to kick out Mclaren not because they built the fastest and most reliabe car. Not only has the full report from the FIA left more questions than it answered, the initial quotes aren't as daming against Mclaren as first thought once seen in full perspective of what was said but they also seem to have a history of FIA decisions in their favour. I still think Ferrari should have been given a warning at least about the conduct of there own staff.
At this stage of the season it seems to be open day for people to say things they shouldn't. We all know Alonso doesn#t want a competitive team mate or Lewis doesn't trust Alonso and thinks the team should help him to the title after Alonso's behaviour but some things shouldn't be said in public.
Helmet Courtesy of Dangerous.
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.0, ASUS P5N32-SLI E
896MB nVIDIA GeForce BFG 260GTX OC, 19"SONY SDM-HS95PR
4GB DDR2 800MHz
At this stage of the season it seems to be open day for people to say things they shouldn't. We all know Alonso doesn#t want a competitive team mate or Lewis doesn't trust Alonso and thinks the team should help him to the title after Alonso's behaviour but some things shouldn't be said in public.
Helmet Courtesy of Dangerous.
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.0, ASUS P5N32-SLI E
896MB nVIDIA GeForce BFG 260GTX OC, 19"SONY SDM-HS95PR
4GB DDR2 800MHz
"Not only has the full report from the FIA left more questions than it answered, the initial quotes aren't as daming against Mclaren as first thought once seen in full perspective of what was said <snip>"
Because the FIA left the really damning parts out.
"There is no evidence at the current time to suggest that the McLaren car violated the technical regulations."
The case is not about that.
"The car is legal, and therefore the driver entries are legal."
Only if you rely on the people who conveniently managed to "miss" the e-mail communications between Coughlan (and de la Rosa.
After copying all their system’s e-mails “as at the end of April and at the
end of June” as part of their investigation (report from Simon Jones, in McLaren IT, to Neale, on July 20th), McLaren failed to find the damning De la Rosa e-mails which were sent to Coughlan’s McLaren e-mail address.
Because the FIA left the really damning parts out.
"There is no evidence at the current time to suggest that the McLaren car violated the technical regulations."
The case is not about that.
"The car is legal, and therefore the driver entries are legal."
Only if you rely on the people who conveniently managed to "miss" the e-mail communications between Coughlan (and de la Rosa.
After copying all their system’s e-mails “as at the end of April and at the
end of June” as part of their investigation (report from Simon Jones, in McLaren IT, to Neale, on July 20th), McLaren failed to find the damning De la Rosa e-mails which were sent to Coughlan’s McLaren e-mail address.
"So what your saying is there is no proof, only speculation?"
Not really. But you can continue playing Johnnie Cochran if you want.
On the balance of probabilities LdM's position is absolutely reasonable.
I could bore you with plenty of examples of McLaren's skullduggery but it seems the only thing that can be accepted as proof around here is a photo of Ferrari parts being painted chrome.
Not really. But you can continue playing Johnnie Cochran if you want.
On the balance of probabilities LdM's position is absolutely reasonable.
I could bore you with plenty of examples of McLaren's skullduggery but it seems the only thing that can be accepted as proof around here is a photo of Ferrari parts being painted chrome.
But that's not really Luca's point.
He is alluding to the evidence demonstrating that McLaren used the stolen Ferrari data (as proved by the e-mails) and thus breached the sporting code and were subsequently thrown out of the Championship. Guilty as charged your honor. If there was sufficient doubt McLaren had the opportunity to appeal. They didn't because they can't prove their innocence or raise reasonable doubt that they did not use the data to their benefit.
The McLaren conforms to the regulations, that is not in doubt.
Luca should really bottle it, as his statements are merely clouding the issue and making people think the McLaren has actual pieces of Ferrari car on it which is not the case at all.
He is alluding to the evidence demonstrating that McLaren used the stolen Ferrari data (as proved by the e-mails) and thus breached the sporting code and were subsequently thrown out of the Championship. Guilty as charged your honor. If there was sufficient doubt McLaren had the opportunity to appeal. They didn't because they can't prove their innocence or raise reasonable doubt that they did not use the data to their benefit.
The McLaren conforms to the regulations, that is not in doubt.
Luca should really bottle it, as his statements are merely clouding the issue and making people think the McLaren has actual pieces of Ferrari car on it which is not the case at all.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.