Reflections on a Disqualification
		by Roger Horton, England

Paranoia is never far from the surface in Formula One, and when any dispute involves Ferrari or McLaren then it doesn't just lie beneath the surface, it positively gushes. On the surface the decision by the FIA to uphold the disqualification of David Coulthard's McLaren from the Brazilian Grand Prix was totally expected. His car had been excluded for non-compliance with articles 3.7, 3.12.1 and 3.12.6 of the FIA 2000 Formula One Technical Regulations. McLaren had agreed with the FIA's measurement at the track. In essence this meant that the front wing ride height was 7mm too low. As the wing was allowed a 5 mm ± allowance, then it was illegal by 2 mm. The McLaren defense was that the extremely bumpy nature of the Interlargos circuit had caused the front wing assemblies to rotate on their axis, thus making the car illegal. As many other cars had suffered damage and unusual additional wear and tear battling the Interlagos track surface over the race weekend, then clearly McLaren had a case. Or did they? Even prior to the race Sauber team boss Peter Sauber pulled both his cars from the event. "While we are at the track it is not possible for us to analyze the cause of the problem to our satisfaction, we have no option but to withdraw from the Brazilian Grand Prix," he was quoted as saying. Earlier, team driver Mika Salo had suffered a rear wing failure induced by the pounding the cars were receiving. After the race, but before Coulthard's disqualification, there was much speculation that five out of the first six finishers, Coulthard's car included, had excessive wear on the planks that are fitted to the underside of the cars to govern their ride height. Even though all were eventually found to be legal it reinforced McLaren's case that the conditions the cars were forced to endure during the race were abnormal and therefore also led to the front wing irregularity. The court of appeal did not refute this, but made the point that " ... all the competitors - including the appellant - had been subjected to the rigors of the circuit in question from the first practice session onwards, and ... all steps could thus have been taken to make the necessary adjustments to the cars to allow them to cope with these difficulties." Presumably, if the other four cars with worn planks also had illegal wings, then perhaps the original results would have stood. On its own, perhaps, this episode would have passed off with relatively no comment, even allowing that anything concerning the McLaren team is of necessity high profile. But, given that it was only three races ago - albeit in the '99 season - that Ferrari had escaped from a seemingly watertight disqualification by the race stewards from their one-two finish in Malaysia, then many cynics were confidently suggesting that perhaps this might be the time the FIA 'evened up' the ledger. The FIA, however, decided to stick rigidly to the 'rules are rules' formula, which is undoubtedly correct provided that it is applied consistently. In the two cases, however, there is a crucial difference as to the way the FIA handled the two appeals. In Malaysia Ferrari were not forced to agree that the dimensions, as measured by the FIA, were correct at the circuit. Technical director Ross Brawn admitted to the problem at a press conference immediately after the disqualification when he said: "(the) regulations state that the bottom of the barge-board has to be the lowest surface when looking from the bottom of the car. Unfortunately, when you get to here [pointing at the area declared illegal], there is a piece missing, about ten millimetres or one centimetre. We haven't established the reason why this has occurred. The piece is obviously checked, and when the prototype is produced, everything is checked for legality. We have to establish what has gone wrong." "I would just emphasise that there is no performance gain from such a piece and, obviously, we wouldn't produce a piece which we knew to be illegal, because they are checked by the FIA," continued Brawn. "There has been a mistake which has left a small piece of material absent." It was clear at that time that Brawn then in no way challenged the actual dimension as measured by the FIA. Nor did Ferrari team chief Jean Todt on his return to Italy, where he told reporters he accepted the blame but did not accept the harsh punishment for the team. "I have a great pain in my heart, but also the desire to react," Todt said. "I feel responsible because I am the director of sporting management. I'm the chief and therefore I'm always going to be the one responsible, but clearly this is a technical problem." As is now history, by the time Ferrari arrived at the appeal hearing, the team's defence had changed entirely. Now the dimensions of the offending pieces were subject to a different interpretation altogether. Some six days and an army of lawyers had worked wonders. Learning from this, the FIA changed the rules of the game for this type of disqualification. McLaren were forced to agree with the dimensions as measured by the FIA technical delegate or be forced to have their car impounded and flown directly to Paris to be on view at the hearing. In essence, McLaren were forced to admit their guilt at the circuit and plead mitigating circumstances. Perhaps in both cases justice was indeed done, but how lucky was Ferrari last year that they were not forced to admit their guilt 'on the spot' - as from the statements of their senior management, no one initially challenged the FIA's findings. With Ferrari agreeing to their guilt and no actual car to be inspected, perhaps the FIA would have upheld their disqualification after all. As is so often the case in Formula One, the interpretation of the rules, and of course the rules themselves, change with the seasons and sometimes with the circumstances. The 'Coulthard disqualification' is just the latest small drama in an endless struggle between the teams to be top dog. However, it may have been the latest, but it certainly won't be the last time there is high drama and disappointment at the FIA's court of appeal.

Roger Horton	© 2000 Kaizar.Com, Incorporated.
Send comments to: horton@atlasf1.com	Terms & Conditions
Listen online to Roger Horton's weekly Formula One commentary on TrackTalk - the leading motor racing weekly show, produced by the IMS Radio Network.

[ Back to Atlas F1 Front Page ]