Current Haas

RasputinLives

Not dead
Contributor
Yes but in the legal system if new definition of the law is defined any offence committed that breaks that definition prior to it newly being defined is not an offence.
 

Grizzly

Bear
Contributor
I'm not entirely sure of your definition defining the definition prior to the original definition being clearly defined with a revised definition by the FIA.

Having said that, there was no new definition, just a clarification because (would you believe it?) the Technical Regulations were a little ambiguous. ...Not something anyone involved in F1 either directly or as an observer has ever experienced to date.
 

RasputinLives

Not dead
Contributor
So just to conclude then. The FIA presented another interpretation of the rules which made some cars now against the rules. One of the teams whose car now didn't meet the new interpretation of the rules asked the FIA if they could run it for two more races and the FIA said yes as long as no one objects. They pass numerous checks by the FIA with the car in that state. They get to the end of the second race and someone objects so they get DQ'd.

I see no cheating here just politics.
 

sobriety

Pole Sitter
To use speed limits as an example.

The speed limit on a road is 50.
You drive along it one day at 50.
A week late the speed limit on the same road is lowered to 40.
If you continue to drive at 50 are you breaking the law?
 

RasputinLives

Not dead
Contributor
No that example only works if you've notified the Police you intend to drive down the road at 50 and they say that's fine as long as no one objects. So you drive down the road at 50 passing the police on several occasions whilst shouting "I'm doing 50!" for about 4 weeks. Then 4 weeks in another driver stops by the Police station and tells them they don't like you driving at 50 so you get fined.
 
Last edited:

Grizzly

Bear
Contributor
The rules didn't change though, so to use sobriety's example, the speed limit is still 50. I'm trying to think how to explain without spending half my afternoon typing. Perhaps someone else on here would be better at explaining, but if not, i shall attempt to resist the sarcasm from the above and actually provide a concise explanation.

Yes, it is complete bureaucratic nonsense. Yes, it is perhaps unnecessarily unclear and has no doubt created the same queries the world over. No, there was no cheating per se, just poor planning on the part of Haas, who were clearly informed how this would play out if they were protested against.

If this isn't put to bed in the next couple of hours, i'll have another go!
 

RasputinLives

Not dead
Contributor
I think we're coming from different angles here Grizzly - earlier in the thread someone said this was blatant cheating and the team should be banned. I was trying to say it's nothing like that.
 

sobriety

Pole Sitter
Ok let's try again: ;)

To use speed limits as an example.

The speed limit on a road is 50.
You drive along it one day at 50. The little old lady with the speed gun checks you, shrugs and wanders off.
A week later the speed limit on the same road is lowered to 40.
You drive along it again at 50. The little old lady with the speed gun checks you, reports you to the police and you're bang to rights?

I generally agree with you about the severity of it, but the FiA changed the rules, Haas broke the new rules but the FiA were willing to ignore it if all of the teams did, they didn't so Haas got done. I'm not a massive fan of it, it would be far simpler if clarifications like that would apply to the next season, rather than a few races into the future, it would also be far fairer to things like Renaults cunning mass damper.
 

Grizzly

Bear
Contributor
I think we're coming from different angles here Grizzly - earlier in the thread someone said this was blatant cheating and the team should be banned. I was trying to say it's nothing like that.
Probably! I was responding to sifferts comment and we got embroiled in definitions :)

Agreed, they were not cheating. They took a risk (allbeit quite possibly without viable alternative) and paid the price unfortunately.
 

Il_leone

Champion Elect
FB Rich Energy were apparently in talks with Williams about $10m sponsorship but they jumped ship at the last minute to go with Haas and it could have cost Ocon a drive for 2019
 

Il_leone

Champion Elect
Is there any reason that Haas are giving Fittipaldi a run ? Does the team have Brazilian or South American sponsors to please because there was talk about it when they first started that they don't necessarily need a US driver

What happened to that Indian development driver they had - the one who Ferruci bullied and racially abused?
 

Izumi

Points Scorer
I have feeling that Grosjean could be the one left in cold. His temper is notch above mine own. Calling boss on mobile and giving him s*****t talk full of expletives is not a good career move, unless you have death wish.
 

Olivier

Race Winner
Is there any reason that Haas are giving Fittipaldi a run ? Does the team have Brazilian or South American sponsors to please because there was talk about it when they first started that they don't necessarily need a US driver

What happened to that Indian development driver they had - the one who Ferruci bullied and racially abused?
Copersucar? Just speculating. Pietro was born in Miami and I think he lives there. The name Fittipaldi should bring some Brazilian sponsors, specially now that there isn’t a Brazilian driver on the grid
 

Il_leone

Champion Elect
Well Mclaren have Brazilian sponsors although they've got themselves in a mess with Petrobras about the fuel spec. I would like to see Alexander Rossi giving a go
 

F1Brits_90

Race Winner
someone does a review of the f1 Netflix series episode 1 & Gunther Steiner is vicious,:o even if I do agree with grosjean stop whinging. :D

haas.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom