FIA Enquiry?

Question

What was the result of today`s enqiury

Answer 1

They said no, no, no, no, no crown for Lew. It was deemed inadmissible.

Answer 2

The International Court of Appeal (ICA) ruled that McLaren’s appeal was inadmissible is totally correct: McLaren was presenting an appeal against the stewards' decision, when they must have first PROTEST at Interlagos the decision, and after it was rejected by the stewards' McLaren could appeal. So it's all procedure, yes but that is how it is.

Now, going to the technical aspect: McLaren was only trying to squeeze itself between a gray area related to "minimum fuel temperature on board the cars", so that they could obtain the F1 Drivers Championship, taking at the same time, in a nominally way, the F1 Constructor Championship (which they lost also in the tracks: Ferrari 204 McLaren 203 - remember McLaren lost the points from Hungary).

Lets analyze what happen at the Brazilian GP:
a) The ambient temperature shown on the FOM timing screens a peak of 37oC, meanwhile the contracted meteorologists Meteo France show 33oC.
b) Bauer based his report on the FOM timing screens.
c) Williams and BMW cars had a fuel temperature of 24oC.
d) So under FOM they are using an illegal car because fuel temperature in the cars was more than 10-degrees C beneath the ambient temperature, but under Meteo France they are legal.
e) The stewards ruled they didn't have a clear reading of the definitive ambient temperature because of the discrepancy between the ambient temperatures recorded by FOM and by Meteo. This provided them with SUFFICIENT DOUBT as to the true ambient temperature and that it was therefore inappropriate to impose a penalty.

Now, what we know about FOM and Meteo temperature:
a) For nearly 2 years the FOM temperature sensor has been considered not very accurate. It was define as unreliable and in the Sporting Working Group meeting on DECEMBER 2006, was determine that is was in no way accurate enough to be used as REGULATORY.
b) Because there is doubt about the FOM temperatures, then METEO's temperature is used to crossreference.
c) In any moment Bauer did a crossreference with the Meteo temperature, to check the correctness of FOM's reading.

It's my opinion that based in the previously expose, that the stewards' decision was correct, and also the ICA decision.
So, this leaves as with the question:
Was McLaren trying to squeeze in, between holes in the rules that don’t define an official measurement on board the car and likewise there is no official measurement off-board the cars?
What the FIA has to do is define and clarified this aspect related to temperature within the regulations, defining what, when, how to and where related to the measurement.

Answer 3

As one would expect with any decision taken by the Fia which is actually short for Ferrari International Assistance and not F1 International Association, the decision went completely in favour of the Ferrari tribe and completely against McLaren!

Answer 4

The FIA rejected Mclaren's appeal! Courtsey of Planet F1:
Kimi Raikkonen's status as 2007 World Champion has been confirmed after the FIA Court of Appeal rejected McLaren's right to appeal the result of the Brazil GP.


Had the BMWs of Nick Heidfeld and Robert Kubica as well as the Williams of Nico Rosberg been disqualified after allegedly using illegal fuel during the race, Lewis Hamilton would have been promoted to fourth place - a gain sufficient for him to 'win' the championship by a single point.


However, in a curious judgement, the Court of Appeal have upheld the result - and thus Raikkonen's status as champion - by concluding that 'the appeal lodged by Vodafone McLaren Mercedes is inadmissible',


Confirming the judgment, a statement read: "Following a report from the technical delegate indicating the temperature of fuel pumped into the cars number nine Nick Heidfeld, number 10 Robert Kubica, number 16 Nico Rosberg and number 17 Kazuki Nakajima, was more than 10 degrees centigrade below ambient temperature, the stewards of the meeting met to consider whether a penalty should be imposed.


"Having heard the evidence they decided not to impose a penalty as they had sufficient doubt as to both the temperature of the fuel on board the car and to the true ambient temperature.


"Having heard the explanations of both parties and having examined the various documents and other evidence, the court decided that the appeal lodged by Vodafone McLaren Mercedes is inadmissible."


McLaren had called into question the decision of the stewards at Interlagos not to punish Williams and BMW Sauber for apparently using 'cool fuel', so gaining a performance advantage.


Rosberg, Kubica and Heidfield finished fourth, fifth and sixth respectively in Brazil behind race-winner Raikkonen, with Hamilton seventh and so missing out on the title by a point from the Finn.


McLaren continually maintained in the build-up to the appeal there motive was for clarity of the regulations, and not for Hamilton to win the title in the courtroom.


However, after initially arguing whether McLaren's case was first admissible, and then the merits of their action, the team's lawyer Ian Mill QC called for disqualifcation of the three drivers and a reclassification of the championship.

That prompted Ferrari's lawyer, Nigel Tozzi QC, to brand McLaren as "naked opportunists," further suggesting they are "shameless hypocrites devoid of any integrity".


The four judges - John Cassidy from the United States, Vassilis Koussis from Greece, Jose Nacedo E Cunha from Portugal and Jan Stovicek from the Czech Republic - listened to four hours of legal argument at the hearing.

Their verdict concludes a miserable season for McLaren, notably as the team were fined £50million and stripped of all constructors' points in the 'spygate' case.

Answer 5

McLaren lost; Kimi is the world champion!

Answer 6

Kimi gets to keep his title.
McLaren's appeal was thrown out.
Justice done.