Doubt remains over Raikkonen’s title as McLaren appeal

Kimi Raikkonen, Ferrari, Interlagos, 2007 | Ferrari mediaKimi Raikkonen is champion for now but the F1 world is waiting to hear the outcome of an appeal by the McLaren-Mercedes team.

McLaren have appealed against the stewards’ decision not to exclude the BMW and Williams drivers from yesterday’s Brazilian Grand Prix.

The stewards found that there was not enough evidence to prove that the cars in question used fuel that was cooler than the regulations allow, despite it being recorded on several occasions that the minimum limit was exceeded during pit stops.

The odds are stacked against McLaren however.

The International Court of Appeal may choose to reject their submission. Even if it goes to the appeal court, choosing to change the order of the race and by doing so change the identity of the world champion would be an extraordinarily controversial decision.

Photo: Ferrari media

Related links

Tags: / / / /

Advert | Go Ad-free

87 comments on Doubt remains over Raikkonen’s title as McLaren appeal

  1. Oliver and Keith, thanks for clarifying that. I knew there had been instances of both but couldn’t remember…

  2. another lewis fan – the ITV F1 site generally doesn’t work, in the past two weeks it has just been doing what it wants, so give it some time and it might sort itself out.
    Talking of ITV, 10 million people watched the race on Sunday – I wonder how many of them could name an F1 driver other than Lewis?

  3. To Oliver!

    You seem to be a McLaren fan. I can understand, that it is frustrating, however, McLaren had shot themselves in the foot, head and wherever not! Hungary DQ was due anyways. They ran an illegal gearbox(no crash test was performed for the new part). If they petitioned, they would have lost Driver’s Championship points as well, with which in retrospect they chose for the better of that(petition). Ron is rather thoughtful, trust me.

    Spygate was rather obvious i’d think, Mosley(check on Formula1.com) just commented that McLaren had Ferrari information all along even before the season began. They really had no footing, to go ahead and ask FIA to reconsider, as Ron would have known, as Mosly opined in his latest interview, the one which i referred to earlier, that he would have had rather seen the back of McLaren & it’s drivers for 2007. Just as well, with sanction for McLaren in 2008.

    I understand your passion, sentiment, however, let logic prevail.

    Also about BAR’s DQ in 2005 was more due to fuel delivery system(fuel tank design) to be precise. DQ of Williams in Montreal in 2004 was due to larger than regulation brake pads(Ralf’s interview to F1racing in the following month’s issue clarifies). Do not know about the Toyota DQ however, did not hear much about it. But i guess there must have been some dirt on them, which is why the DQ. Do not forget, even Schu was docked a seasons points for foul play(1997), then think Monaco, 2006.

    However, it is rather becoming obvious that LH can get away with what ever he does. No proof to the contrary, as yet! In-fact, Fuji(erratic driving behind safety car), Quali in Brazilian GP(extra tyre set, and getting away with blocking Raikkonen on hot lap) in Brazil only add up to the theory.

    This is for all you LH supporters. Alonso was only spared in spygate as Lewis would have to be docked just as well. This was not a situation that they(council) wanted, as English press was holding FIA hostage. They bent over backwards to save some negative press. It is rather disparaging to see such petulant behavior from eminent journalists, even reputed ones as such of the F1Racing magazine et all.

    Mosley wanted to dock them both. Guess what went wrong and why wasn’t that done. Let me say Mosley wanted it in the name of fairness, it is others who ruled in the favour of not doing so. It is mighty rich of Mclaren to speak of “Honest/best behavior”. If anything, this was rather to the detriment of Ferrari, as their chief rival was clearly getting away with using their technology. Also, they had to (almost)bid their hopes of driver’s championship, owing to the pressures of English press, which was rather hostile towards FIA.

    Am glad Raikkonen won it on track.

    Regards!

  4. Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 22nd October 2007, 14:08

    There’s lots more discussion on whether the FIA generally favour Hamilton here: Alonso is not the victim of a McLaren conspiracy

  5. This is another piece of evidence in the logbook of F1/FIA cock-ups. Rules enforcement is at best capricious.

    Spantard :)

  6. Number 38 said on 22nd October 2007, 14:17

    It’s “fun” reading F1 forums, so many opinions from so few facts. Journeyer (whom I often agree with) Says: “I still do believe that BMW and Williams still have to be punished for their infringement.” I find that interesting, he’s condemed them even with no evidence. And Oliver (whom I rarely agree with) got it right with this remark: In McLaren’s defense, they did not appeal any of the penalties handed to them this year, …” suggesting they wouldn’t appeal this one. I think all of us would agree (like it or not) Kimi won the race and the Championship and further FIA meddling would only bring further “disrepute to the sport”. It’s time to turn the page and get ready for 2008.
    And we’ve still got Williams and Spyker crying about ‘customer car teams’……..will it never end? Is this really the “pinnacle of motorsport”?

  7. another lewis fan said on 22nd October 2007, 14:22

    thanks vertigo.

  8. oliver said on 22nd October 2007, 14:26

    Sri:

    I am a fan of F1, and no fan to any particular team. And I also try not to get emotional when I comment.

  9. Journeyer said on 22nd October 2007, 14:53

    Number 38, to clarify:

    I’m not condemning BMW and Williams at all. However, it has been stated by the FIA TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE (and that’s crucial here) that the fuel had irregularities.

    From grandprix.com:
    The FIA Technical Delegate Jo Bauer reported at the end of the race that the fuel temperatures in the two BMW Saubers and the two Williams-Toyotas were in contravention of the regulations at various points during the race. His report states that Nick Heidfeld’s fuel temperature was measured during his two stops as having been 24-deg C and 25-deg C, when the ambient temperature was 37-deg.

    That’s pretty much black and white, the way I see it. The only reason BMW and Williams did not get punished is due to conflicting data on the ambient. Now, if BMW and Williams prove that they are not guilty, good on them. But if they were, they have to get the corresponding punishment.

    But following historical precedence, that should not affect the drivers. This infringement (if ever) was a one-time deal. In addition, unlike BAR’s 2005 fiasco, it will be much harder to prove that this was done on purpose with the team knowing that it was illegal. And let’s face it: do we really want the title (not to mention what is arguably the greatest comeback in the history of the World Championship) taken away in a courtroom?

  10. Journeyer said on 22nd October 2007, 14:55

    I forgot to add, the fuel thingy (as I mentioned in another thread) has also happened in Interlagos back in 1995 (with Schumi and DC). The teams were docked points, the drivers weren’t.

    Nuff said.

  11. oliver said on 22nd October 2007, 14:57

    Sri:

    I might also want to state that, while Mclaren is no longer scoring points, technically they still score points only it will be wiped off at the end of the season. Their prize money won for champoinship position will form a part payment of their $100M fine. So if they protest, it might have nothing to do with the drivers championship, but more for the constructors championship, because those extra points got if the team points or (team and driver) point are taken away from BMW and Wiliams, then it would mean, Mclaren are infront of Ferrari techinically (constructors). And thats money less to add in meeting up with the fine.

    Also, you make me laugh calling BAR’s disqualification
    …”Also about BAR’s DQ in 2005 was more due to fuel delivery system(fuel tank design) to be precise”…

    That is an over simplification. In actual fact, they were using fuel as a balast. Their fuel tank had a smaller fuel tank in it that was always filled up with fuel to meet the minimum weight requirement. However, the posibility existed, that the ballast fuel could be used up during the race, enabling the car to run far lighter than the minimum weight requirements with the associated performance benefits.

    Toyota and Williams were disqualified for the same reason. The difference in with which their brake “cooling” ducts exceeded the regulations, was by just a few millimetres.

  12. verasaki said on 22nd October 2007, 15:28

    It’s the season that just keeps giving.

    McLaren is within their right to appeal so you can’t blast them for doing it. Personally I think it’s a silly choice but these are big stakes so I see where they wouldn’t agree.

    I just couldn’t believe when I came back in last night I was reading that Kimi maybe hadn’t taken it. I couldn’t believe he did take it either so, I’m not sure how surprised I was.

    I hope/think the FIA will uphold the stewards decision, though. Yesterday’s race was actually one of the few really high points since June or July. This is the stuff that’s supposed to be my escape from the real world. It’s turned into just one more bag of aggro this season.

    Time to say bye bye to 07.

  13. Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 22nd October 2007, 15:56

    Having deleted another raft of comments containing insults directed at other people can I please remind everyone once again to avoid using insults and be aware of the terms of commenting on F1Fanatic. Debate is great – but if you resort to insults your comment will be deleted.

  14. slightly off topic, but fun nevertheless:

    according to Pitpass, lewis did hit the wrong button and cause his gear malfunction:

    http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=33292

    all ron dennis has said on the matter is:

    “There was an incorrect command given to the system.”

    he has yet to state by whom the command was given!

  15. Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 22nd October 2007, 16:04

    If that’s true that would be enormously humiliating…

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.