Sidepodcast

Christine and I have been picking through the bones of today’s International Court of Appeal rejection, and the main point we keep coming back to is the involvement of Tony Scott-Andrews.

Them’s the Rules

Just to reiterate, prior to the hearing it became apparent to the FIA that McLaren were going to rely on the admission of a previous appeal hearing from October 2007 as part of the basis for their defence. To counter this, the FIA informed McLaren that there was a mistake made by the stewards during that particular hearing and in fact the defendant, one Vitantonio Liuzzi, was assigned a 25 second time penalty in Fuji, but he actually should have been given a post-race drive-through penalty (which equates to 25 seconds and which cannot be appealed).

This in and of itself, seems perfectly legitimate. Article 16.3 of the sporting regulations states that in the case of Tonio’s infraction, one of three penalties can be meted out. A drive through penalty, a ten second penalty or a 10 place grid drop next time around. Additionally article 152 states that pit lane drive-throughs are not susceptible to appeal.

A Moment of Madness

So all is well and good. The stewards messed up in Fuji and then the ICA didn’t question it during appeal, but as it was, the case was lost and the results stood as they were. Questions should be asked how all this managed to occur of course, but that’s not the argument today. The rules clearly state a mistake was made and the FIA fessed up, presumably with the intention of saving themselves much embarrassment in Paris.

Continue reading…

As we sit around awaiting the outcome of yesterday’s appeal hearing, it occurs to me that it might actually be amusing if McLaren win. That the championship be decided by a few men in suits, arguing in a courtroom.

I have never known such unanimous support for an appeal to fail. I don’t remember the last time so many within the sport were unified in agreement. All the way down the paddock, to the media, to the fans and even those with little more than a passing interest. Nobody wants to see a season end this way. Except of course for McLaren.

Which is why, if they’re successful, all hell will break loose. Caustic hate and vitriol, the likes of which Formula 1 has never experienced before, will be focussed directly at single team. And to be honest, that’s nothing less than Vodafone McLaren Mercedes deserve.

I’m not sure if it’s because we’re paying more attention this year, or because the season transpired to expose many of the Woking team’s weaknesses, but I haven’t seen very much that they have to be proud of in ‘07.

The team seems to have conducted itself in the most peculiar of ways, almost as if the people in the press office are paralysed by the frosted glass façade that is their ‘modern working environment’. That the management structure within the team encourages the propagation of misinformation and spin.

On occasion it will take the high road, with magnanimous proclamations of sportsmanly conduct, while next time falling on its sword, pleading forgiveness. This week has seen the perfect embodiment of this PR paralysis. Prior to the hearing, CEO Martin Whitmarsh goes on record with:

Like all true devotees of motor sport, we would never like to see a drivers’ championship decided in court rather than on track.

But days later, the team’s lawyer Ian Mill argues for exactly the opposite thing in the London courtroom:

It cannot make a difference it was the last race of the season, and that it will decide the championship. Invariably, whenever there has been a disqualification, there has been a reclassification.

Finally, as if to prove that they truly are the motorsport equivalent of the pantomime horse, Whitmarsh tries to defend Mill’s comments by saying:

The team was seeking to clarify the regulatory uncertainty that has arisen from a decision of the FIA Stewards at the 2007 Brazilian Grand Prix and not to win the Driver’s World Championship.

It really does defy belief. A never-ending stream of contradiction, subterfuge and misinformation. That’s all we ever seem to get from McLaren.

Compare, if you will, how BMW and Williams have handled themselves throughout this matter. You could argue that, anything said may be used against them, but the fact is they are the accused, yet even if found guilty, they will come out of this with their reputations intact.

Bring on the verdict.

In less than two days time, the FIA’s Court of Appeal will convene in London, to hear McLaren’s case against the result of the Brazilian GP. The conclusion of the hearing should offer a bit more clarity as to why two teams, both of whom were suspected of running fuel below the minimum specified temperature during the race, were completely exonerated by the stewards following post-race scrutineering.

At the time, the argument BMW put forward to the stewards was - while the temperature of their fuel may have dropped more than 10°C beneath FOM’s ambient temperature (the one shown on timing screens), the FIA’s independent weather data supplier noted that the ambient at the time was in fact much higher, and therefore the fuel did not fall more than 10°C below ambient.

The thing is, the FIA’s reading is not the measurement understood to be the one followed by the teams, that being the one that is provided by FOM on the third page of the timing screens (and also repeated on the weather and speed tab of internet Live Timing). However, FOM’s figure appears to be somewhat fallible.

During the post-Brazilian Renault podcast, Pat Symonds claimed that:

The equipment that is used to display the temperature on page 3 of the timing screens is very, very old. It’s not cared for, it’s not been calibrated for years.

To further back this up, Ted Kravitz suggested after the race that:

Either the air temperature probe was in the sun (air temp should always be taken from the shade) or it was not calibrated correctly.

When the race started, the FOM screens showed the track temperature as 62 degrees. That would’ve melted even my trusty Dr Martens boots.

For reference, the FIA data is supplied by a company called Météo-France, and has been since the FIA asked them to start providing accurate information last year. The majority of teams contribute to the cost of this service, and one has to wonder why?

Another obvious question would be, given that F1 is such a technology-focused sport, why is it that Formula One Management cannot be trusted to calibrate their own electronic equipment, especially the bits that the regulations specifically rely on? And finally, why do the teams readily accept this?

I wonder if the FIA anticipated a problem like the situation in Brazil occurring, and thus implemented their own back-up solution. Agreed, the timing couldn’t have been worse, but I believe that the FIA may have pre-empted problems, and provided the ideal answer.

With any luck, Thursday’s appeal will clarify the details and clear both teams of any wrongdoing.

As a final thought: one has to wonder how it is that the Bernie Ecclestone owned Paul Ricard circuit, manages to obtain weather data from a certain company called Météo-France, yet at the same time FOM president Bernie Ecclestone still didn’t rate said comapnies services enough to use them during race weekends.