Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
You have a problem with analogies, don't you?
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
You have a problem with analogies, don't you?
But "dear old Damon" forgot to mention that the FIA determined that McLaren and RedBull were running similar devices, didn't he?Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63877
Dateline Paris Feb. 25, 2008..........................................
In a statement released today, FIA President Max Mosley sought to reassure the fans of Formula 1 that the FIA does indeed listen to, and respond to public opinion. " Many of you have voiced your displeasure over the verdict of the Ferrari-McLaren affair, especially in light of the fact that McLaren didn't actively solicit the documents and were themselves, in a sense, victims of the actions of a rogue Ferrari employee." said Mosley. "Therefore, in the matter of the McLaren-Renault affair, we can announce with pride that McLaren has been fined $100 million dollars for allowing a rogue/former employee to violate sporting regulation 151c by sharing McLaren intellectual property with Renault. In addition, McLaren will not be allowed to collect points towards the constructor's championship in the 2008 season." He continued " Renault has been fined $15, one dollar for each Renault engineer that saw the data." Mosley stated that he felt confident this verdict would address the issues of fair play raised by the public.
He also confirmed that a complaint had been filed by Ferrari against Force India over the theft of Ferrari intellectual property because of Force India's use of an uppercase "F" in the team name. No hearing date has been set.
Renault has expressed shock and outrage over the amount of the fine and will appeal the verdict. Said Flav " Fifteen dollars is outragous! This could break us!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
Weell nooow i said details to be worked out, however the following seems to have done that quite nicely
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
But you fogot to add:
" Renault and Maclaren computers will no longer be allowed to be able to use or access floppy disks and they will be inspected to be sure that this rule is strictly obeyed for the entire year of 2008"
"Further, to prevent further such incidents in the future, all teams are hereby ordered to handle all spying issues internally and no team may take advantage of the secrets of another team on "how to cheat without being caught" without suspending the engineer providing the information for an indefinite period of time; however all such future matters will not be disclosed to the public to preserve the integrity of the sport"
"Finally there is no truth to the rumors that the new FIA inspection sticker was deliberately designed to be identical to the team logo of a certain team jointly owned by two certain individuals and will now be one foot and by two feet, to be displayed in a prominent postion on both sides of all cars in competition as the design was simply a mere coincidence."
Of course, we should not be too smug about this, as the actual events and rulings will be more outlandish than anything that could be dreamed up,,,,,,,,,
Gee!! the end of season Blues are affecting us badly this time of year. :(
Absolutely! They're used to avoid talking about the actual subject and take the discussion onto something else. For example, someone who wants to defend a partisan view about the McLaren WMSC hearings but hasn't read the verdict or the transcripts, can start talking about credit cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
Well I personally am hoping to get a bit more information about this. Max saying that McLaren were running the same floor as Ferrari doesn't square with Jonathan Neale trying to introduce the issue into the WMSC hearing.Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
But even if McLaren were, that wouldn't make it comply. The problem is that the FIA said the design complied with the letter of the rules, but it did not. Read clause 3.15. It's no answer to say "the FIA said it was OK". That is the problem, not the solution.
And very often, such comparisons are largely irrelevant because no direct comparisons can be made between situations in one field and another.Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
That's not the case, because for obvious reasons the enforcement of the rules is made in terms of measurements. Otherwise, a marshal would be able to say for example "this part flexes too much" and ban a car. Rules like 3.15 express what is usually called "the spirit of the rules", which is the guide used to determine the measurement test. And that's precisely what happened after Australia: it was noted that these movable floors complied with the letter of the rules but not the spirit, and the measurements were changed accordingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
Tinchote. This is a classic case of everyone sucks except for who I support. Facts or truth don't enter into this argument.
And we have told him how he is a nong and asked him to leave the post for how many years now? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
This is being discussed (I hope) in detail on the FIA slams Hill thread, please join in there :)Quote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
Well well well, the FIA are in a bit of a tight spot. They set a precedent by hitting McLaren very hard but the problem with that is that they then have to hit any other team doing something similar equally hard to be seen as being fair.
In this case McLaren info was actually on a Renault computer and 15 engineers are supposed to have seen the data which is 14 more than in the McLaren case. On the face of it the evidence against Renault is stronger than the evidence against Mclaren was, so what is the FIA going to do?
Interestingly I also can't see Alonso being all too keen to sign up for a team that might suddenly not be scoring any points in 2008 and may have a whopping fine put against them so where is he going to go?
Max does not really say this ---what he says is the test was changed or revised, and as a result, the three teams had a floor problem. The Mac design could have been totally different, may not have lowered as much, may not have relied on springs, may have used some special composite material that flexed/deflected at speed....Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
there has never really been much of an explanation for how the ferrari floor actually operated, and its design details. Same for the Mac and RB floors.
So one can not really say much except to speculate.
Actually Max said a "similar device" but we don't have the details to know if it was the same design. I assume he means that the device had the same effect (flexing floors) whether it was the same design or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
So you are agreeing that if the Ferrari floor was "illegal" there is the possibility that the McLaren and RedBull floors were also "illegal" at Melbourne according to 3.15?
Yes I think I have to :mad: . I posted on the Max slams Hill thread that the Macca floor seems to have hinged down too.Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
Ron could have stitched Fernando up, couldn't he, if he'd waited till he'd signed and the other teams had confirmed their drivers, then made the complaint. Bet he was tempted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
No he couldn't, he complained about Renault already back in August. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
"But while conducting an interview with team boss Briatore, a journalist for The Times says the Italian "seemed puzzled as to why McLaren had waited so long to make a formal complaint to the FIA, which they did this week."Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
In the days leading up to Renault's FIA summons, McLaren refugee Fernando Alonso was reportedly imminently close to agreeing a deal to return to the French team in 2008."
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headline...11165618.shtml
It's ironic that when Pat Symonds was asked by Nigel Roebuck if he thought McLaren were guilty he said "yes, I suppose so", but when asked what exactly they were guilty of he said "not very much".
In the light of what's happening to Renault I wonder if he has the same opinion now.
Perhaps when he was quoted, he might have known the faecal matter was inevitably going to hit the rotating blade air cooling device at some future point........Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
they waited waay to long for this one I know exactly why too but If I say it I will get into a whole **** war with all the Ferrari fans :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
I would like to add yet again that yes there is precedent regarding how to deal with Renault over this latest spy scandal:
As found on grandprix.com:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
JULY 26, 2007
No punishment for McLaren F1 team
The World Council gathers
© FIA Media
The FIA World Motor Sports Council has decided not to impose any penalty on McLaren. The FIA said after the hearing that it would pursue action against Coughlan and Ferrari engineer Nigel Stepney.
The governing body said that there was no doubt that the team's chief designer Mike Coughlan had had the leaked information but there was no proof that McLaren had benefited from it.
The FIA reserved the right to summon McLaren again if it was suspected that the team had made use of any of the data.
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19454.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is this such a hard concept? It wasn't until the so called communications between the drivers that proved that their was atleast some intent to use the data that the book was thrown at McLeran, Renault and Flav are insisting that they did not benefit at all by having the Mcleran designs:
As found on speed (and probably everywhere else but Grandprix.com (wonder why?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"“We gave to [FIA President Max] Mosley all the correspondence and the evidence and a statement from our engineers making clear we never used any McLaren system in our car."
"I am confident the information was not used, and not only me. We have witness statements from every engineer that was involved and, categorically, everybody says that there was no influence of any of these things on the design of our car."
http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/41550/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So assuming that Flav isn't pulling a Ron Dennis and lieing threw his teeth, based on precedent, should Renault get the same original punishment as MacLeran did?
Well put, much better than the most recent opinion piece on GrandPrix.com, where he suggests the only option is to give them a $100M fine. He's turned into a Mac cheerleader... he's lost a lot of credibility on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSfan
Your opinion was excellent though... I think they should likely get the same ORIGINAL punishment as the Mac did.
PS: We see the difference between having Ferrari data (Mac turned into reliable world beaters from also rans the year before) and Renault who went from world beaters to pud beat... well you get the idea, when they had some Mac data from the previous / pre-Ferrari year. LOL - OK it's a joke some of you, don't get all riled up!
Good one! ;) :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by GP-M3
I'm sure Flav and Max are going to play for the original "punishment". However that was based on no evidence that the dossier really got into the team, it was just briefly shown to Jonathan Neale who immediately told him to get rid of it. It was not that it couldn't be seen in the car, that was still the case at the second hearing when they got the points taken away and the $100m fine. The no-punishment case was that only Coughlan had the dossier, and the team were guilty only in the technical sense, that they are automatically responsible for the behaviour of their staff.
The difference is that Renault had the data in their computer system, it was widely viewed and was there for 8 months.
So Max has work to do.
But beyond viewing, was it tested or used too? Does any driver have certain emails they would like to share with us??? :idea:Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
Well OK, the emails are an extra factor but they didn't lead anywhere in particular. The gas was never tried and the weight distribution couldn't be used. There was some stuff about pitstops but nothing to show that the Ferrari data were "used", on the car.Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
Renault can't really improve on this. They can say they haven't used the data, but they only end up in the same situation as McLaren, at best. The data were all over the engineering department.
For me the fact that they left the data hanging around for so long, and let so many people in on it, shows that in F1 this is just normal. But the McLaren precedent is there for the WMSC, and even if Max makes some clever arguments he'll struggle to stop the headlines saying "bias" unless Renault do get a similar penalty.
We are waiting to know how all this has been proved!Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
I am not entirely sur ethat the use of Ferrari data CAN be proved, can it.....?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
And now, as the situation stands, it looks as if the FIA team looking at the 2008 McLaren for Ferrari ideas (that one still makes me snigger), are going to have to divide their time between Woking and now Enstone - looking for McLaren ideas in the 2008 Renault.
That immortal line from Blazing Saddles "Darn it Mr Lamar Sir, you use your tongue prettier than a $20 dollar whore" really, IMO, ought to apply to Max!!!!!
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