Ferrari/McLaren Espionage Story [merged]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

The Honda case was rather different. I remember seeing a sketch of the system with it's special return valve to the hidden tank. This system allowed a car to qualify at lower than regulation weight, and run every stint except the last one on a lower fuel load than other cars, and run lighter towards the end of stints except the last one. If I remember correctly, during the weighing after the race, Honda was asked if the tank was empty and they said yes. The stewards then tipped the car up and more fuel was drained from the car. However, this did not prove, at any stage, that the car was in fact running light at any stage during quals or the race.
The FIA then got Honda for using fuel as a ballast. Not sure if any other teams had such a system.
I think this is correct, unless my Alzeimer has already kicked in tonight. :(

---

not bad. the fuel tank was legal and the car was over the minimum weight when measured. for the tank to work properly, the scav needed fuel in so the likelyhood that they ran it down to that was minimal. what they could do was run it a dead weight with fuel in the scav which they claimed we immovable as it was sealed and if you drained it, the car would stop.

I thought they got them on a technicality of not being able to prove that the car always confirmed to minimum weight as no electronic data could be used in evidence.

most of us thought Honda were hung out to dry because others were using a similar arrangement from the same firm that supplied the Honda system. this is something that is impossible to prove but I would point you to the last Ferrari stop of the race where Schumy came in a lap or two after button and took on more fuel. ring any bells? ;)

if you want my opinion, Max was furious that they tried to pull the wool over his eyes and he was going to get his pound of flesh no matter what the evidence said. it also helped quash the Manufacturers threatened breakaway by getting Honda to tow the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

I notice you haven't attempted to defend your logic...

---

Just to be clear, my post in question was in relation to the Autosport report about Stepney emailing Couglan details of Ferrari's flexi-floor. That said...Can we agree that, if the allegations are true, Stepney is guilty of passing trade secrets to Coughlan? There was certainly no Watergate-style break in by McLaren employees to Maranello to get this information after all.

Why Stepney sent such an email, what Coughlan subsequently did with it, and whether McLaren gained a sporting advantage from it is the subject of speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Nor have I said you are wanting to get Mclaren 'off'...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

I'm hoping that Mclaren's lawyers/advisors are better than you at trying to get them off!

---

I agree. You didn't say that exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

If you want to take offence, then that is your perogative.

---

Thanks for the offer. I'll think about it.

Meanwhile, perhaps you'd like to answer the question I asked of you.

Assuming someone is guilty, and then looking for "evidence" to support that "guilt" is hardly the right way to go about things. Or do you not agree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hendersen

That guy needs to be removed from his position in the FIA. As a guy that's suppoed to be an impartial judge of events, he goes into this meeting claiming that he thinks Mclaren will only get a minor reprimand and that "proving they copied parts from the ferrari will be hard". Uhh, can you get more stupid? There are dozens of ways to use the ferrari information without "copying their design" and only an idiot would copy their design as it becomes instantly easy to prove that the part was copied! Biased morons have no place on the panel. I'd like to know how he "proved" that schumacher purposely parked it up in monaco. What a complete and total moron.

---

id go with that too!!!......they can use the information they have simply to undermine Ferarris effort on the track, rather than try to copy or utilise any of the Ferarri plans !!!! and 1 way to utilise that knowledge might be seeking clarification on a floor design nobody else has, BEFORE the first race of the season!!!! :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

Agreed!! let's go shoot out his kneecaps.

---

he he !!!! :s mokin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

No, thats not the case.

The Ferrari floor was able to pass the FIA tests, proving that it ought not be able to flex. However, it was designed in a way to flex under a load greater that in the FIA tests. That is against the spirit of the rules, is it not? And, moreover, if it can flex in excess of the tolerances laid down in the rulebook, it is thus illegal.

I have yet to see a safe testing facility that allows an FIA delegate to measure the floor while the car is travelling at 190mph...... :D

The MD in the Renault was only deemed Illegal because someone in the FIA labelled it a 'moveable aerodynamic device'.

I mean, just how can a device, tucked out of the airflow inside the vehicle be aerodynamic?

Just to give you an idea of the oik that is Charlie Whiting, the Chauffeur here in the office used to fit sunroofs for the garage one BE used to work at with Charlie. Charlie was so chuffing inept, they did not even trust him to do the MOT's.

And look what he is doing now.......

---

ill repost 1 i did earlier if i can find it about why the mass damper was deemed a "moveable aerodynamic device".......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Racehound

ill repost 1 i did earlier if i can find it about why the mass damper was deemed a "moveable aerodynamic device".......

---

I may be sinking into premature old age and getting mixed up again but wasn't the final reason they fudged it, sorry, deemed it illegal, that if developed firther, it had the opportunity to become, in effect, a twin chassis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Assuming someone is guilty, and then looking for "evidence" to support that "guilt" is hardly the right way to go about things. Or do you not agree?

---

If the prosecutors would assume people not guilty in crime cases than they would not search for evidence and there will be no case and thus no crime, however this clearly isn't the way things happen, and that's why there are guilty people behind the bars.

Sorry ioan, perhaps "assuming" was the wrong word. "Deciding" would have been better, because I do think some have decided McLaren are guilty without being in possesion of the full facts. There are certainly plenty of theories and assumptions but those do not establish guilt.

Presumption of innocence is a legal right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

The Honda case was rather different. I remember seeing a sketch of the system with it's special return valve to the hidden tank. This system allowed a car to qualify at lower than regulation weight, and run every stint except the last one on a lower fuel load than other cars, and run lighter towards the end of stints except the last one. If I remember correctly, during the weighing after the race, Honda was asked if the tank was empty and they said yes. The stewards then tipped the car up and more fuel was drained from the car. However, this did not prove, at any stage, that the car was in fact running light at any stage during quals or the race.
The FIA then got Honda for using fuel as a ballast. Not sure if any other teams had such a system.
I think this is correct, unless my Alzeimer has already kicked in tonight. :(

---

Valve, I only mentioned the Honda incident to demonstrate the flaw in Tamburello's reasoning about trade secrets. As I said, my recollection is that Honda's system went undetected by the FIA until a tip-off from some ex-employees who had moved to a rival team. Tamburello claimed that the details of Ferrari's moveable floor were trade secrets and the passing and receiving trade secrets is illegal. Well, in that case the FIA should have punished the ex-honda guys and themselves (as recipients) because if Ferrari's floor was a trade secret then so was Honda's fuel tank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

If the prosecutors would assume people not guilty in crime cases than they would not search for evidence and there will be no case and thus no crime, however this clearly isn't the way things happen, and that's why there are guilty people behind the bars.

---

Grazie Ioan. That's saved me having to type it.

Once again, however, for the hard of hearing and those at the back of the class who have not been paying attention, I repeat....

I have not assumed or decided that Mclaren are guilty.

What I have said is that they need a better argument in their defence than the one's that have been offered as arguments on this forum.