In any case the emails between the drivers were saying that they were going to test the Ferrari solutions. This is more of a used than not used sign! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Printable View
In any case the emails between the drivers were saying that they were going to test the Ferrari solutions. This is more of a used than not used sign! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Yes, don't get me wrong, I think the loss of WCC points and the fine was justified (I don't agree with the amount of the fine though).Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
But, if I enter F1, as the 12th team - lets say ShoeString F1 - and I see an innovative feature on a competitors car, which my technical dept try out, would I get penalised for it? I know that is simplistic, but we can agree that Weight Dist can be (quite accurately guestimated) by looking at a craned car? Is that spying? It may be that most of the non dossier info on Ferrari in the McLaren HQ could have been gained from other than NS - were all the txt messages and phone call transcripts made available for their content, was that info actually available?
It is the proof of the use of IP that is going to be the bugbear, and this 'Ferrari Idea's' shennigans that Max (an intelligent man, apparently) came out with that astounds me.
The amount of the fine was rather bogus though... they were allowed to deduct their TV rights/Winnings this year, based on how many points they scored. (Since they had and used Ferrari data) they scored high in the points and thus were given a huge deduction.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
It was a smokescreen. IMO: They should have disqualified them from the winnings this year, then given then some reasonable (but high - though far less than $100m) fine with a simple monetary amount.
One of the drivers being FA, whom Montezemolo was being so nice about afterwards :pQuote:
Originally Posted by ioan
The truth is that it can't be to any degree that is permissible in a court of law — just as all the other accusations about F1 (FIA bias towards Ferrari, FIA bias towards Hamilton, Ecclestone bias towards Schumacher, Ecclestone bias towards Hamilton, etc, etc, etc) can't be proved.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
The more I read about all of these primary issues — the McLaren spying affair, the Renault spying affair, the moving floors — the more confused I get.
Flexing floors, please! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Anyway, lets hope that next season we get action only on the tracks. :)
For now I'm enjoying MS' testing sessions! :D
Flexing, moving — same difference! If you disagree, ask Bernie and Max, not me. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
:up: to the second comment. I'd also like a lack of conspiracy theories...
Good point, I suppose once this Renault spy scandal is taken care of, MacLeran will then lodge a protest against BMW for using those "horns" on their car?Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
But actually, the MacLeran/BMW horns can be used as a prime example of what is acceptable practice regarding F1 "spying"
If BMW had used pictures and such taken during practices and GP's to help them imitate the horns, then thats acceptable
If They had some stolen blueprints that helped them in the design process... well that would warrent the $100 fine
Also getting back to the whole "at least 15 people at Renault knew about them" whats the relevance to that? Do we know how many people had access to the Ferrari documents at McLeran? we at least know their drivers did, so I suspect it must have been alot more widespread at MacLeran then Renault.
Also I do recall an article on speedtv.com suggesting that not only did Alonso suggest they try using the same gas in the tires, but MacLeran actually attempted to create those gasses but failed. I'll try to find a link to that, but I don't think speed keeps archives...
A $100 fine? Sounds reasonable to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSfan
And cheaper than paying a photograph to take all those needed pictures, not to mention the wind tunnel costs! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell