I'm not sure how Williams and BMW's use of fuel cooled to illegal levels is McLaren doing anything to the sport. Cooled fuel provides an on-track horsepower advantage to any car and shortens pit-stop refueling times too. The track stewards determined two teams were operating outside of the rules. The stewards then decided not to impose any punishment against these teams. McLaren have appealed that decision. I don't see any shit dragging there, but it's moot anyway, as the chances of McLaren getting the FIA to rule against BMW and Williams and thereby take the driver's title from Ferrari : zero.
The matter was reported to the stewards, the stewards chose not to do anything after spending hours examining the evidence. End of story. It's turned the sport into an utter farce again. It's like the Red Sox winning the World Series in a courtroom rather than on the field. Apply this to any other sport and you see the level of farce. If it was that big of an issue, you'd think the cars in 9th, 11th and 12th would have appealed as well. (Since Nakajima's car was also illegal in 10th. So he wouldn't be elevated to the points.) After all they'd be elevated to the points if the cars were thrown out and the FIA chose to elevate them. (That is at the FIA's discretion by the regulations.) But they didn't. They accepted the stewards decision. Only McLaren decided to protest. Now Toyota not protesting I can understand, after all Williams are running their engines. Coulthard would have benefited. But then STR runs Ferrari engines, so Red Bull may not want to piss Ferrari off. However Sato in the Super-Aguri was 12th, and has no loyalty to anyone but Honda, who they stuffed royally. With four cars excluded, Sato goes to 8th place, thus earning more constructors money and a bigger share of the TV revenue. But they chose not to protest. They accepted the stewards decision. If McLaren were running the cooler fuel, had been investigated and then not punished, that's fine. I love the way, JJ, you assume you know how I'd react, when you clearly don't. Teams were caught breaking the rules. (Won't call it cheating as I doubt either team did it deliberately.) If ANY team is caught cheating and not investigated, THAT I have a problem with. But they were, and the stewards chose not to exclude them. That should be the end of the story. Being turfed out the race is not the normal sanction as you put it. Every incident is different. The sporting regulations, just like in almost every other case, say the outcome is at the discretion of the stewards. The only prior similar case was about ten years ago when two cars were excluded for fuel irregularities. Constructors lost points, drivers didn't. That was a LONG time ago so can't really be relied on as a benchmark. The fact is, McLaren are just doing this to stick it to Ferrari. They know the FIA won't do anything. There are plenty of provisions which allow them to sanction BMW and Williams, but the regulations clearly state it is at their discretion as to whether to elevate those drivers below them anyway. So the FIA could throw out BMW and Williams and still not gift McLaren the title. McLaren just want to see Ferrari twist in the wind. What I find interesting is across the many F1 sites on the net, the majority opinion is that McLaren are in the wrong, and I am certainly not alone in being hugely anti-Ferrari, but actually being on their side this time. I wonder how long you've been F1 fans? Or are you the dreaded casual fans who really don't care about the sport, but have only come to it because of certain nationalistic interests and now assume yourself to be experts? Whatever, I'm done justifying my opinion here. Let's just cut to the chase. I'm right. Any right thinking Formula One fan would agree that the sensible course of action in a season that has been sullied so badly with spying allegations, record punishments etc... Needs to be quietly left to die. Instead, this "sporting" team with "integrity and honour" have been handed the ball, and while they know they can't get to the goal, they're going to muck about just to piss off the winning team anyway. That's the actions of a bush league team that has sunk to Ferrari's level.
"I wonder how long you've been F1 fans? Or are you the dreaded casual fans who really don't care about the sport, but have only come to it because of certain nationalistic interests and now assume yourself to be experts? Whatever, I'm done justifying my opinion here. Let's just cut to the chase. I'm right." Wow. That's beautiful right there. I've been involved with F1 since I was in the womb. My father was a mechanic for the Cooper team, the Lotus team and finally the Shadow Hill team. He worked with former world champion Phil Hill at Cooper, then worked for Lotus when they won driver and constructor championships in 1970 and 72 and then worked with former World Champion Graham Hill at his team. Hill's death affected my Father badly and that, coupled with all the travelling with a young son in tow, (me), lead to him quitting full-time involvement with F1. In the mid 70s he did some brief work for Hesketh F1 and future World Champion James Hunt. Finally he had some even more brief work with Walter Wolf and Toleman. Later, between the age of 18 and 22 I went to an average of four European Grand Prix a season. In a very cranky VW Camper Van. The last GP I went to was won by Johnny Herbert, which will give you an idea of how long I've been off the circuit, but at last count I'd hit 34 Grand Prix. I didn't become an F1 fan - F1 is something I grew up in. It has always been there, like breathing. In light of that, I'm going to be presumptuous here and assume that you're going to be kind enough to allow me to play in your thread. So, to address some of your viewpoints. You ask why McLaren are the only team appealing the decision, (although you then sort of puncture your own argument by suggesting that Super Aguri are the only team politically free to appeal the decision). I don't know, so like you, I'm going to have to guess. In order, the reasons I can come up with are : 1) McLaren can win a world championship via a successful appeal. 2) No one else has to appeal, because McLaren have. If the Williams and BMW cars are excluded everyone of the teams who can potentially benefit, do benefit, even though McLaren have done the leg work. I think it's much more likely that this is the reason Toyota haven't appealed, rather than some concern for their engine customer. 3) Super Aguri were, (with McLaren), one of three teams fined 15,000 on Friday for using too many sets of wet tyres. It's no secret that a good way to get a big penalty from the FIA is to appeal a small one and BBC commentary teams and some of the "many F1 sites on the net" point out that if the FIA overturn Sunday's decision, they may also revisit Friday's decision. McLaren have no constructor points to lose. Super Aguri do. So if I was Aguri Suzuki, I'd be sat on my hands letting McLaren stick their necks out too. You mention that the FIA's sporting regulations say that "the outcome is at the discretion of the stewards" which is correct, but the FIA also provide an appeal process and it isn't there just for show. In fact, in the "similar" issue in Brazil that you mention, (in 1995), Benetton and Williams both used the appeal route to reclaim their driver points after the original steward's decision was to remove both driver and constructor points. In that instance, the illegal fuel did not improve car performance. In this case, Williams and BMW were confirmed (by FIA data) to have used fuel cooled outside the set limits a change that does improve car performance. The stewards decided they had insufficient evidence. I'd appeal that too. Especially with a world driver's title on the line and the assertion from Martin Whitmarsh that "The team believes that the FIA has, in written clarification of the Technical Regulations and in its minutes of two Formula 1 Team Manager meetings, made clear how it would interpret and manage the Regulations and Procedures associated with the control of fuel temperatures." When the governing body says specifically "don't do X" and then two teams go ahead and do X anyway, you'd have to expect the scrutiny to be even more thorough than usual. As for what I think will happen well, in 1995 the teams weren't given their driver points back because they were cleared, they were given the points because the FIA appeal experts group couldn't come to a decision about whether the fuel gave the drivers an advantage. I expect the same sort of "wash" here as the FIA admit that their data shows fuel that is outside of the stipulated temperature bands, but their experts are unable to come to a unanimous decision about whether the evidence is compelling and what that means. Williams might end up with a financial smack on the wrist or a +10 grid slots at the first Grand Prix of next season for breaking the rules twice in one race weekend, but I don't expect the FIA to decide the destination of the world title off the track, regardless of how correct it may or may not be to do so. I expect McLaren to lose and I suspect McLaren expect McLaren to lose, but with no constructor points to lose and a world championship to gain, I'd totally appeal, even if that appeal didn't have the added bonus for McLaren of spoiling Ferrari's day. But you're right, so what do I know.
