Formula 1 - 2008 Season

Yes, so Renault fall into the category of the second verdict not the first.

They had info, and 9 people knew about it, discussed it, whatever you want to call it.

Fair enough, they were honest about it after it was discovered so maybe less of a fine would be applicable, but they are as guilty (in the best case scenario) as McLaren.

McLarens first verdict was because the FIA couldn't prove more than one person knew about it, the second verdict was because a few people knew about information not even covered in the documents they had.

9 people knew about the McLaren information (at least) so the first verdict really is irrelevant.
 
Who did Ferrari prove saw their documents?

One guy.

You(sorry DJ12, this isn't pointing at you but rather the people complaining about the Renault decision) seem to disregard the fact that Alonso could ask for info on the Ferrari car and get it a few hours later because the McLaren designer Coughlan was in contact with Stephany. I'd say that info is regarded as current info and why McLaren was fined.

The fine wasn't because McLaren had documents, but rather that they were using a 'spy' in Ferrari to give them info, and dare I say, sabotage Ferrari(have you forgotten about the white powder that the Italian authorities found that was linked to a Ferrari sabotage).

Anyway .. let's get to the facts.

Renault were charged just like McLaren, and got the same result.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62348

lemme quote:

McLaren was informed that, at the 26 July WMSC meeting, it would be asked to answer the charge that between March and July 2007, in breach of Article 151(c) of the International Sporting Code, it had unauthorised possession of documents and confidential information belonging to Ferrari.

In particular, McLaren was charged with the unauthorised possession of one or more of the following technical documents that could be used for one or more of the following purposes: designing, engineering, building, checking, testing, developing and running a 2007 Ferrari Formula One car, including drawings, lay-out and digital mock-up schemes, technical documents and reports and procedures relating, amongst other things, to weight distribution, aerodynamics, component designs, suspension, gearbox, hydraulic, water, oil and fuel system designs, assembly and building technology designs.

1.5 In response to the charge, McLaren made extensive written submissions in advance of the 26 July WMSC meeting and made detailed oral argument at the meeting itself. McLaren did not dispute that Coughlan had come into possession of Ferrari confidential information but argued, inter alia:

(i) that the Ferrari confidential information in question had not been circulated within McLaren;

(ii) that McLaren had neither used nor benefited from the receipt by Coughlan of the Ferrari confidential information; and

(iii) that the actions of Coughlan in receiving and dealing with the Ferrari confidential information were those of a "rogue employee" for which McLaren should not be held responsible.

1.6 The WMSC considered the arguments and evidence presented by McLaren at the 26 July WMSC meeting and came to the conclusion that McLaren had been in possession of Ferrari confidential information and was therefore in breach of Article 151(c) of the International Sporting Code.

1.7 Although a number of unsatisfactory elements were noted during the deliberations, in assessing the gravity of the breach, the WMSC concluded that there was insufficient evidence that the information was used in such a way as to interfere with the running of the FIA Formula One World Championship ("the Championship").

1.8 However, conscious of, inter alia, the fact that several related procedures were ongoing (including, notably, the High Court Proceedings, a criminal investigation in Italy and various internal forensic investigations at McLaren and Ferrari), the WMSC explicitly reserved the right to revisit its conclusions if further information came to light, in particular information showing that Ferrari confidential information had been used by McLaren to the detriment of the Championship.

1.9 The following Decision was therefore reached:

"The WMSC is satisfied that Vodafone McLaren Mercedes was in possession of confidential Ferrari information and is therefore in breach of article 151c of the International Sporting Code. However, there is insufficient evidence that this information was used in such a way as to interfere improperly with the FIA Formula One World Championship. We therefore impose no penalty.

But if it is found in the future that the Ferrari information has been used to the detriment of the championship, we reserve the right to invite Vodafone McLaren Mercedes back in front of the WMSC where it will face the possibility of exclusion from not only the 2007 championship but also the 2008 championship.

The WMSC will also invite Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan to show reason why they should not be banned from international motor sport for a lengthy period and the WMSC has delegated authority to deal with this matter to the legal department of the FIA.
"

McLaren got a warning for this. Renault got a warning for the same thing.

The reason McLaren got fined:

Lemme quote again from the above link I posted:

3 New Evidence - E-mails between McLaren Drivers

3.1 In the period after the 26 July Decision, the FIA was made aware of a specific allegation that e-mails relevant to the FIA's investigation had been exchanged between certain McLaren drivers.

3.2 The FIA therefore wrote to three McLaren drivers (Mr. Alonso, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. de la Rosa) to establish whether or not this allegation had any basis in fact and requested that they produce copies of any relevant documents, including any electronic communications (howsoever conveyed or stored) which may be relevant to this case and which make reference to Ferrari, Ferrari's employee Nigel Stepney ("Stepney") or any technical or other information coming from or connected with either Ferrari or Stepney.

3.3 The McLaren drivers were reminded of their duty as competitors and Super Licence holders to ensure the fairness and legitimacy of the Formula One World Championship. Given the importance of establishing the facts and that the information might not come out any other way, the FIA offered the assurance that any information made available in response to the letter would not result in any proceedings against the drivers personally under the International Sporting Code or the Formula One Regulations. However, the drivers were notified that if it later came to light that they had withheld any potentially relevant information, serious consequences could follow.

3.4 All three drivers responded. Mr. Hamilton responded that he had no information responsive to the FIA's request. Mr. Alonso and Mr. de la Rosa both submitted emails to the FIA which the WMSC finds highly relevant. Subsequently (at McLaren's request) both Mr. Alonso and Mr. de la Rosa made written statements to the WMSC verifying that these e-mails were sent and received and offering context and explanations regarding the e-mails. The e-mails show unequivocally that both Mr. Alonso and Mr. de la Rosa received confidential Ferrari information via Coughlan; that both drivers knew that this information was confidential Ferrari information and that both knew that the information was being received by Coughlan from Stepney.

weight distribution

3.5 On 21 March 2007 at 09.57 Mr. de la Rosa wrote to Coughlan in the following terms:

"Hi Mike, do you know the Red Car's Weight Distribution? It would be important for us to know so that we could try it in the simulator. Thanks in advance, Pedro.

p.s. I will be in the simulator tomorrow."

3.6 In his evidence given to the WMSC, Mr. de la Rosa confirmed that Coughlan replied by text message with precise details of Ferrari's weight distribution.

3.7 On 25 March 2007 at 01.43 Mr. de la Rosa sent an e-mail to Fernando Alonso which sets out Ferrari's weight distribution to two decimal places on each of Ferrari's two cars as set up for the Australian Grand Prix.

3.8 Mr. Alonso replied to this e-mail on 25 March 2007 at 12.31 (they were in different time zones). His e-mail includes a section headed "Ferrari" in which he says "its weight distribution surprises me; I don't know either if it's 100% reliable, but at least it draws attention". The e-mail continues with a discussion of how McLaren's weight distribution compares with Ferrari's.

3.9 Mr. de la Rosa replied on 25 March 2007 13.02 stating the following:

"All the information from Ferrari is very reliable. It comes from Nigel Stepney, their former chief mechanic - I don't know what post he holds now. He's the same person who told us in Australia that Kimi was stopping in lap 18. He's very friendly with Mike Coughlan, our Chief Designer, and he told him that."

So, McLaren were getting information from Stephany. And yes McLaren benefitted from this info.

BZB and dizietsma, please stop saying that Renault should be fined, when they've been given the same warning McLaren were given the first time around.

US
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I won't stop saying Renault should be fined because they broke the sporting rule. McLaren should have also been fined the first time around because they broke the sporting rule.

What the FIA said was that although they broke the rule they did not gain from it. Does that make it OK? If you stole $3m and then did not spend any of it would that be ok?

If rules are broken then there should be action, or else what is the point of having them? So Mclaren should be fined the first time around and so should Renault now.

However, if you are of the opinion that it is not breaking the rules but then how much you gained from them then this is a very slippery slope because the FIA cannot quanitfy how much as been gained by each team.

We can though see that both Mclaren and Renault tried to get an advantage by using the infromation they obtained to protest cars of other teams. So on Renaults part there is intent to gain advantage from breaking the sporting rules.

And you still say they should not be fined? If you believe that then you have the same skewed viewpoint as the FIA does on what should happen to people who break rules.

It's quite obvious to anybody outside the FIA, who does not just parrot what the FIA have said, that both teams should have been punished and only the amount of punishment should have varied depending on other mitigating factors.
 
The sporting rule get broken god knows how many times a year and that is the case ever since F1 existed. The ''problem'' is its impossible to prevent data going to different teams because engineers and designers switch teams. For example you could punish every team Newey worked for except his first team because you can be sure he took data and info from those teams to his new team and used the knowledge he gained in other teams. Its impossible to stop the transfer of data a knowledge. What mclaren had however was their own 24/7 support desk when they wanted to know something about Ferrari. Renault OTOH only had some drawings with data that they would have gotten anyway because they had a engineer from mclaren now working for them but they couldnt ask for any detail they wanted at any given moment.

It's quite obvious to anybody outside the FIA, who does not just parrot what the FIA have said, that both teams should have been punished and only the amount of punishment should have varied depending on other mitigating factors.

That is your opinion and I disagree. People always complain about how unfair the FIA is, and they might be, but not in this case. Mclaren didnt get a fine the first time (no matter if they should have gotten one) and so did Renault. So now the FIA finally gives 2 teams the same treatment and its still not OK?
 
So now the FIA finally gives 2 teams the same treatment and its still not OK?

They have not treated them the same way.

1. Both teams had another teams IP in their possession.
2. Both teams used that IP to their advantage or tried to use it to their advantage.
3. Only one team got a penalty.

I don't care how many investigations it took or at what investigation point you are comparing, it is end results and things proven that matters.
 
At the end of the day, Mosley is a prick, he doesn't like Ron Dennis so he shafted McLaren.

I will not be at all surprised if come February, McLaren are found to have the same thread wheel nut as Ferrari and are thrown out of the championship as a result.

1 person saw the Ferrari technical documents, nothing was used, so why the need to inspect McLarens 08 design after all the guy caught with the files has been sacked.

All the further "evidence" proved in McLarens case was that more people knew about Ferrari information, not at all relating to the technical documents, than they knew first time.

Nothing in these emails was that secretive, it's the sort of information that passes all the time in F1, and it was of no advantage anyway (unless you really think McLaren wouldn't have known Kimi was coming in on roughly lap 18 anyway)

It has nothing to do with the rules, but the egotistical tosser at the head of the FIA's grudge against one of the teams bosses. As has been highlighted by many inside the sport all be it through third parties.
 
It was a pretty different story when the shoe was on the other foot.

Renault team chief Flavio Briatore admitted he was baffled by the FIA World Motor Sport Council decision yesterday to apply no penalty to McLaren despite finding them guilty of unauthorised possession of Ferrari documents.

The WMSC found McLaren to be in breach of article 151c of the International Sporting Code but said there was insufficient evidence to suggest McLaren had used the confidential Ferrari information "in such a way as to interfere improperly with the FIA Formula One World Championship."

Briatore said found the mixed decision baffling, and compared it to Pontius Pilate, who famously washed his hands off the decision to crucify Jesus Christ.

"I don't understand what happened," Briatore told Gazzetta dello Sport, "because to begin with you would only gather the World Council if you had proof. Otherwise, if you don't have proof, you avoid such a meeting.

"So I don't understand what happened: if the FIA admits to have established possession of Ferrari material by McLaren, then why is there no retribution? This verdict reminds me of Pontius Pilate."

Briatore also said the entire affair has been damaging to Formula One as a whole, but he empathised with Ferrari's frustration over the verdict.

"These weeks we've all heard and read what happened, and surely this story has been very damaging for the business of Formula One, also considering the great media exposure it has had," the Italian said.

"If someone had some advantage from the possession of the material, it would have been fair for him to pay the consequences. Besides, I too would have liked to know Ferrari's weight distribution...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They have not treated them the same way.

1. Both teams had another teams IP in their possession.

Yes, something that is almost impossible to prevent unless you ban personall to join another team.

2. Both teams used that IP to their advantage or tried to use it to their advantage.

True, though the thing that speaks for renaults advantage of not using it is that they went from a WDC winning car to a not very good car when Mclaren went from a not so good car to a WDC winning car. Also mclaren got data over a period of time while renault just had a few drawings (alot less than mclaren had) a engineer brought in.

3. Only one team got a penalty.

Yes, after the second ruling. Maybe that could still happen to renault if they discover more info just as with the mclaren case?

I don't care how many investigations it took or at what investigation point you are comparing, it is end results and things proven that matters.

Yes and the end result is that renault didnt got punished just as mclaren didnt got punished in their first ruling. Who knows what happens if they discover email's between renault drivers and have a second ruling, because that is why mclaren got punished.
 


I'm sure Tongue and Unknown Soldier could put him right :D

In all serious though Tongue has a good point, they can be consistent with rules. The problem is that the rules say what should not be done but then there is no guideline for what the punishment should be. This is very clever of the FIA as it allows them to do anything they wish and so give them free reign.

As a comparison with normal judicial courts, if you murdered someone then you have an inkling of what you might face. It might be the death penalty, it might be life in prison, it might be 20 years, it might by feck all if you live in an anarchy, but at least it is written what you are likely to get.

But with the FIA they say you cannot bring the sport into disrepute. So you are found guilty of that, what do you get? The problem is it is not written down so it allows the FIA to be vindictive or overly lenient depending on their want? So one team gets far to higher punishment and one team gets feck all, depending on how the wind blows that day and who feels a bit agrieved.

It suits the FIA completely that the punishments are not laid out for breaking the rules, it gives them more power and control, control by fear.

Even journalists cannot say this without being put under fear it seems

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article3021312.ece
 
woot (official word of the year version)
looks like the fia are starting to see sense (not sure about the warmers though)
Tyre-warmers are currently set to be outlawed along with grooved dry tyres to make way for a return to proper slicks and a lower-downforce aero-package.
 
They have not treated them the same way.

1. Both teams had another teams IP in their possession.
2. Both teams used that IP to their advantage or tried to use it to their advantage.
3. Only one team got a penalty.

I don't care how many investigations it took or at what investigation point you are comparing, it is end results and things proven that matters.

Fine, I call on Max Mosley to ban both Renault and McLaren from racing in 2008.

Hope that makes you happy dizietsma

Hell, i'm sure Brundle would be happy about it too.

US
 
woot (official word of the year version)
looks like the fia are starting to see sense (not sure about the warmers though)
Tyre-warmers are currently set to be outlawed along with grooved dry tyres to make way for a return to proper slicks and a lower-downforce aero-package.

I think the slick rule is only gonna be implemented in 2009 Davros.

I'm sure I heard/read that somewhere. Lemme look.

US
 
I think the slick rule is only gonna be implemented in 2009 Davros.

I'm sure I heard/read that somewhere. Lemme look.

US


Maybe they are making a return in 2009, its not decided yet. Hopefully with the new low aero package cars will look more like those from the early 90's, those cars looked awsome. Now they only need to allow v10 or even v12 engines.
 
Slicks are to be introduced in 2009.

Both Heidfeld and Button though were using Bridgestone's new development specification tyres, ahead of the possible re-introduction of slicks in 2009.

Traction Control will be removed in 2008, with the re-introduction of slicks in 2009.

http://www.crash.net/motorsport/f1/news/157920-0/slick_nick_puts_bmw_top_on_day_one.html
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/071204184937.shtml
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64268

US
 
Well hopefully Kovalainen can get a seat at McLaren
in that case because he had a good rookie season last year after he got over his intial settling in period. Otherwise I guess it's Toyota, however Trulli has served then well, if not spectacularily, over the past few seasons.

Alonso will have his hands full with Piquet Jnr and Piquet Snr at Renault I think, that will be one of the more interesting things for the season I think.
 
Back
Top