More F1 Spying?

[ScionDriver]

From BBC:

Renault have been summoned before Formula One's governing body to answer a charge of possessing confidential McLaren technical information.

McLaren were fined $100m (£47.5m) and thrown out of the constructors' championship after being found guilty on a similar charge in September.

Renault are to appear before the FIA world motorsport council on 6 December.

The information included "the layout and critical dimensions of the McLaren F1 car", an FIA statement said.

BBC SPORT | Motorsport | Formula One | Renault face McLaren spy charge (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7085098.stm)

ESPN - Renault F1 team accused of spying on McLaren - Open-Wheel (http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/news/story?seriesId=6&id=3099940)

[faksta]

So, several years after all the teams will have the same car - Ferrari F2007 under different names...

[NicFromLA]

I'm starting to think they should eliminate all spying rules and let the teams steal as much as they want from each other. If that happens they'll stop developing new technologies in the cars and F1 will once again because how well driver handle cars and not the press. ;-)

[ScionDriver]

I'm starting to think they should eliminate all spying rules and let the teams steal as much as they want from each other. If that happens they'll stop developing new technologies in the cars and F1 will once again because how well driver handle cars and not the press. ;-)

NASCAR teams steal from one another all the time. They look at what other teams do and pretty soon everyone is. That is until they started getting strict with the car inspections.

[mclaren_crazy]

I think that if anything does come out of this, it won't be as sever as it was for McLaren because its not ferrari that is the defending and so it actually becomes a fair trial

[MadMax13]

Wow, they stole McLaren intel and STILL sucked...

[henk4]

Wow, they stole McLaren intel and STILL sucked...

that is because the McLaren intel had not yet been upgraded with the Ferrari intel.....

[bruxell]

NASCAR teams steal from one another all the time. They look at what other teams do and pretty soon everyone is. That is until they started getting strict with the car inspections.

But NASCAR is so over restricted that the most you can really "steal" is set-up information. I don't think there's really room in the rules for honest inovation...

[bruxell]

I'm starting to think they should eliminate all spying rules and let the teams steal as much as they want from each other. If that happens they'll stop developing new technologies in the cars and F1 will once again because how well driver handle cars and not the press. ;-)

If that's what you want, go watch Champcar, or some other spec series. F1 has always been about more than just the drivers; the cars, and the technology they encompass are a big part of the draw. It's the top level of motor racing, and should, to my way of thinking, be de-resticted somewhat from the FIA's current crack-down.
Spying though is cheating, and if convicted Renault should be punished just as harshly as Mclaren...

[MadMax13]

But NASCAR is so over restricted that the most you can really "steal" is set-up information. I don't think there's really room in the rules for honest inovation...

They drive in a circle, how ****ing hard can it be to find the ideal setup. NASCAR is just a joke anyways...

[bruxell]

They drive in a circle, how ****ing hard can it be to find the ideal setup. NASCAR is just a joke anyways...

I don't think NASCAR -in basic concept at least- is a joke. A lot of the drivers are very skilled, and the cars, however low-tech they may be, are very powerful, not to mention fast.
The ideal set-up for 200mph, in a car with no downforce, has got to be a pretty fickle sweet-spot. I'm sure the teams take whatever information they can get. But I do lament the over-regulation that has led to NASCAR being nothing more than a spec series; it used to be so much more. It was a place where manufactures brought highly tuned versions of their street machines to race against each other. I wish it could be again...

[kingofthering]

They drive in a circle, how ****ing hard can it be to find the ideal setup. NASCAR is just a joke anyways...

They got dem fancy-schmancy spoilers now. :D

[fpv_gtho]

Guys, take the NASCAR bash elsewhere

[Zytek_Fan]

Can the FIA just please let it drop?

[fpv_gtho]

This is McLaren making the complaint though. Its not necessarily up to the FIA to handle everything, otherwise Toyota would've been penalised when some of their employees were found with Ferrari data.

[Coventrysucks]

Its not necessarily up to the FIA to handle everything,

The FIA writes the rules - both the sporting code and the technical regulations - makes judgements and hands out penalties when those rules are broken.

Yet, unless someone points out that a rule is broken, be it a team or race stewards, the FIA cannot enforce those rules.

As it stands; you can cheat, openly, and as long as there is no complaint the FIA will allow it to happen.

The FIA allowed Toyota to break article 151c.

How can the FIA be described credibly as a "governing body" in that situation?

Saying it "isn't up to them" does not make it any less incredible that such an outcome is possible.

Either it should be "up to them" or they should ensure there is another organisation in place to enforce their rules.

How can the FIA penalise teams for "Any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interest of any competition or to the interest of motor sports generally" when they are guilty of the same by not taking action when action clearly needs to be taken?

Allowing teams such as Toyota to cheat cannot possibly be 'in the interests of competition or motor sport generally'.

And of course, if Renault are found guilty, which surely they must - as much "evidence" as was enough to convict McLaren is already there - they are stuck again;

On the one hand, they enforce an identical penalty, which Renault cannot afford, forcing a team out of F1, or they hand out a lesser penalty, proving that the McLaren penalty was unfair, and exposing themselves to further criticism and accusations of having a personal vendetta against the team.

[Zytek_Fan]

The FIA writes the rules - both the sporting code and the technical regulations - makes judgements and hands out penalties when those rules are broken.

Yet, unless someone points out that a rule is broken, be it a team or race stewards, the FIA cannot enforce those rules.

As it stands; you can cheat, openly, and as long as there is no complaint the FIA will allow it to happen.

The FIA allowed Toyota to break article 151c.

How can the FIA be described credibly as a "governing body" in that situation?

Saying it "isn't up to them" does not make it any less incredible that such an outcome is possible.

Either it should be "up to them" or they should ensure there is another organisation in place to enforce their rules.

How can the FIA penalise teams for "Any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interest of any competition or to the interest of motor sports generally" when they are guilty of the same by not taking action when action clearly needs to be taken?

Allowing teams such as Toyota to cheat cannot possibly be 'in the interests of competition or motor sport generally'.

And of course, if Renault are found guilty, which surely they must - as much "evidence" as was enough to convict McLaren is already there - they are stuck again;

On the one hand, they enforce an identical penalty, which Renault cannot afford, forcing a team out of F1, or they hand out a lesser penalty, proving that the McLaren penalty was unfair, and exposing themselves to further criticism and accusations of having a personal vendetta against the team.

I agree with you completely :cool:

[fpv_gtho]

Well i never said that i agreed with the rules, or that they were any good. Theyre the rules the teams have to play to however.

[Coventrysucks]

Theyre the rules the teams have to play to however.

That is precisely the point though - the teams do not have to play to the rules, because there is no system in place to ensure they do.

What the FIA have done is create laws, judges, lawyers, court rooms and a prison - almost an entire justice system for F1; but it is missing one key element - no police!

What is worse is that it is not even a proper justice system, but a justice lottery - the outcome of any given investigation does not depend on evidence or proof, but of a range of other criteria - nationality, popularity, level of competitiveness.

"Only if a dispute between teams involves something which affects a motor sport competition can, or should, the FIA become involved." - FIA spokesman, today. (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63877)

Therefore; a team using the intellectual property of another team to design their car is not something that "affects motor sport" if that team is Toyota - it does "affect motor sport", however, if that team is McLaren or Renault.

If the FIA isn't going to follow its own rules, why should the teams?

[Daz27]

I dont understand why they don't just piss the FIA off and create a governing body made up of competant individuals that are no older than 55 and have no members that have recognition in the legal field as a qc and have a father that was linked to the nazi's... Seriously, the entire organisation couldn't organise a fu*k in a brothel, and, until they install people who possess the ability to see past their own bank accounts and have half an idea of what is going on around them then I seriously cannot see F1 being able to call itself the pinnacle of motor racing when it is run by a pack of dropkicks that change the rules when someone finds something that makes their car a poofteenth of a second faster than a Ferrari.

[henk4]

why don't you all understand that FIA is just FIAT for those who cannot spell, and FIAT owns Ferrari, so everything is clear.....FIA is there to organise F1 in such a way that FIAT wins, and the rest can play along.

[torque55]

this is probably shaping up as a worst case scenario for alonso.

First mclaren then renault.
i think ron is getting alonso back.

[faksta]

this is probably shaping up as a worst case scenario for alonso.

First mclaren then renault.
i think ron is getting alonso back.

Do you think Ron needs Alonso? :confused:

[Coventrysucks]

why don't you all understand that FIA is just FIAT for those who cannot spell, and FIAT owns Ferrari, so everything is clear.....FIA is there to organise F1 in such a way that FIAT wins, and the rest can play along.


Q: Is Ferrari more important for Formula One than other teams?

MM: Yes, firstly, because it holds a historically important position, as the team has been involved in Formula One since 1950. The second point has something to do with existential orientation: imagine that there were only one British team and all other teams were Italian, that the commercial rights holder was Italian, as was the FIA President, the race director and his assistant and the sport’s commissioner. Wouldn’t it be understandable that this team would be very careful? I therefore use my neutrality with a huge amount of responsibility and stay in close contact with Ferrari to assure them that no British ‘mafia’ or cartel tries to take advantage of them. But should we find it necessary to impose our technical or sporting regulations, than Ferrari is treated like any other team. Should we find irregularities on a Ferrari - like the moveable floor after the Australian Grand Prix - it is removed and banned.

Re the highlighted text -

How is working closely with Ferrari to ensure no British "mafia" "takes advantage", being "neutral"?

Surely being neutral in that context would mean treating all teams equally, not favouring one team that is a minority. Why does he not stay "close" to STR, the other Italian team, or BMW, Force India or Honda and Toyota - other "minority" teams vulnerable to the British "mafia"?

To even imply that there is a British "mafia" - whatever that is supposed to mean - is a hugely inappropriate comment to make on any number of levels.

I'd like to believe that this accusation that the FIA is Ferrari International Assistance is just cynicism (and I admit that I play to that notion) - but there is no reason to believe that it is not when the President of the organisation openly admits that he is best chums with Luca di Montezemolo, and only gives Ferrari special treatment.

Even if he is truly unbiased - that he would say make such comments that are the opposite of that position - it would only serve to reinforce how inept and unprofessional the entire organisation is.

[henk4]

I'd like to believe that this accusation that the FIA is Ferrari International Assistance is just cynicism (and I admit that I play to that notion) - but there is no reason to believe that it is not when the President of the organisation openly admits that he is best chums with Luca di Montezemolo, and only gives Ferrari special treatment.


read carefully, he only says that Ferrari is more important than other teams (in general, not in the "regulatory" eyes of FIA) and he ends saying that Ferrari gets NO special treatment ("treated like any other team") when they are caught cheating (which you will probably not believe, but it is what he said...)

[Matra et Alpine]

it would only serve to reinforce how inept and unprofessional the entire organisation is.
so on that basis all Americans are inept because of Bush ?
All English because of Blair ??
Obviously not !
Mosley is clearly losing the plot though and I've been ignoring his words since his deplorable comment on JYS

[orne]

From what has come out so far, it seems they didn't use that information and did notify FIA and Mclaren when they discovered what was happening. Anything else is pure speculation...

[Coventrysucks]

(in general, not in the "regulatory" eyes of FIA)

Where does he say that?

That is supposition.

The President of the FIA says "Yes" in answer to the question "Is Ferrari more important than other teams?" No more, no less.

He is not clear enough - there is too much room for interpretation of his comments.

If he really means that Ferrari is not favoured, and all teams are treated equally, why not say so?

Why "But, if we have to, we treat Ferrari equally..."?

Why is he saying that all of the teams apart from Ferrari are a "British mafia"?

Apart from implying that British motor sport operates as a criminal organisation - something the President of the FIA should not really be doing - , there are only two "British" teams - all the others are merely based in the UK because companies brought up failing British teams.

Why would Renault - a French company - , or Honda and Super Aguri - Japanese companies - be part of a "British mafia"?

These sorts of comments are unprofessional and damaging to the sport, and do not convey an image of fairness and impartiality.


so on that basis all Americans are inept because of Bush ?

I don't think you can realistically suggest a similarity between Americans and FIA members.

Membership, unlike citizenship, is not mandatory for FIA members.

They are free to leave the organisation, or criticise its President if they do not support its/his actions.

That no one really seems to do that implies that everyone is happy for Mosley to preside, and say stupid things on their behalf.

"There's a big problem with F1. You can make it absolutely fair, but then it will usually be dull."

Is that not in complete contradiction to the role the FIA is supposed to play?

As regulatory body, rather than PR firm, shouldn't the aim of the FIA be to ensure absolute fairness, regardless of how "dull" it is?


From what has come out so far, it seems they didn't use that information and did notify FIA and Mclaren when they discovered what was happening. Anything else is pure speculation...

There was no proof that anyone at McLaren used Ferrari information, and McLaren notified the FIA and McLaren when they discovered what was happening. Anything else was pure speculation, and McLaren were found guilty.


understands that Renault and McLaren's investigations have revealed that more than 15 engineers in total examined the information from McLaren, which included details on the 2007 car. It is believed each of these has confirmed the fact in writing.

Sources have suggested that the engineers are not just junior staff members, but also include head of vehicle performance and R&D, deputy technical director, deputy chief designer and chief designer Tim Densham.

[henk4]

Where does he say that?

That is supposition.

The President of the FIA says "Yes" in answer to the question "Is Ferrari more important than other teams?" No more, no less.

He is not clear enough - there is too much room for interpretation of his comments.


"more important for F1 (please note: not more important for FIA) than other teams" and I would also have replied "yes" there simply because of the fact that Ferrari is the only team that has participated all seasons since the very beginning of F1....

[Coventrysucks]

"more important for F1 (please note: not more important for FIA) than other teams"

The correct answer, in my opinion, from the President of the FIA, is:

"Ferrari is no more important to us, the FIA, than any other team."

That is a diplomatic answer, which I think is required.

Answering that, yes, Ferrari is "good for F1", can imply they will act favourably and appease Ferrari to ensure that they will remain in F1 - for the "good" of the sport.

Adding that Ferrari will be treated equally when the FIA "should find it necessary" implies that fairness towards Ferrari is not the default standpoint of the FIA.


simply because of the fact that Ferrari is the only team that has participated all seasons since the very beginning of F1....

That is not a good reason to keep Ferrari in F1, and a worse reason to come from the FIA.

The reason to keep Ferrari in F1 is that they want to be in F1.

The only consideration the FIA should have in mind when debating a team's presence in the sport is whether the car is legal or not - that should be the limit of their authority on the matter.

Ferrari should have no more right to be in F1 than Force India in the eyes of the FIA.

As for tradition as reasoning - syphilis has been around a long time - that does not mean it should be kept around.

[henk4]

Answering that, yes, Ferrari is "good for F1", can imply they will act favourably and appease Ferrari to ensure that they will remain in F1 - for the "good" of the sport.


this sort of reasoning is exactly why Mosley is talking about the British Mafia, why do you say "can" imply?

[henk4]

That is not a good reason to keep Ferrari in F1, and a worse reason to come from the FIA.

The reason to keep Ferrari in F1 is that they want to be in F1.

The only consideration the FIA should have in mind when debating a team's presence in the sport is whether the car is legal or not - that should be the limit of their authority on the matter.

Ferrari should have no more right to be in F1 than Force India in the eyes of the FIA.

As for tradition as reasoning - syphilis has been around a long time - that does not mean it should be kept around.

Mosely is not talking about the right to be in F1. He gets a simple question about whether the presence of Ferrari is good for F1. Given Ferrari's tradition the answer is yes. (What would you have answered?)
If Mosley had been asked whether Force India would have less right to be in F1 than Ferrari, you can bet on it that the reply would have been "no".

The problem is that everything Mosley is saying will "by some" interpreted as favouritism. He cannot do any good in the eyes of "those people" and of course the grapes in the UK are extremely sour because McLaren managed to throw away the 2007 driver championship in a very amateuristic manner:)

[Matra et Alpine]

McLaren managed to throw away the 2007 driver championship in a very amateuristic manner:)
agreed with all till that Pieter.

It was NOT amateurist ... it was highly professional - they just got caught doing it

(IMHO:))

[Coventrysucks]

this sort of reasoning is exactly why Mosley is talking about the British Mafia

Why is not taking Mosley's words at face value akin to being a violent, murderous mob?


why do you say "can" imply?

Because it is not explicit - it is left open to interpretation.

"Ferrari is good for F1" - what does that mean?

What is "good" for F1?

It can mean any number of things.


Given Ferrari's tradition the answer is yes.

What "tradition"?

The tradition of being involved in at least one major controversy every season for the last 5 or more years?

If Ferrari had not been there for the last 5 years, there would be far less off-track controversy, which would be "good" for F1.

Burning people at the stake is "tradition", famine is "tradition" in parts of Africa.

"Tradition" is not a reasonable excuse to keep doing something.


What would you have answered?

Why are you asking that question?


The problem is that everything Mosley is saying will "by some" interpreted as favouritism.

There are things that he could say, or certainly not say, that would make it more difficult to reach those conclusions.

That Ferrari will be treated equally "should it be necessary" - what a stupid thing to say!

It isn't hard to "interpret" favouritism in those circumstances.

From the President of the FIA, the answer should be unequivocal and emphatic - no caveats attached.


of course the grapes in the UK are extremely sour because McLaren managed to throw away the 2007 driver championship in a very amateuristic manner:)

You think that all it would take for people to forgive Mosley's indiscretions would be for McLaren to win a championship?

To extend Matra's inappropriate comparison - people only think George Bush is an idiot because America haven't "won" Iraq - it is just sour grapes.

[henk4]

"good" for F1 is what brings in the money.....in that respect Ferrari is immensely better than Toyota....let alone Force India.

and i am not going to respond to your outrageous and ridiculous comparison with the famine situation in Africa. At least your posts are not ambiguous, they are very clearly lacking any objectivity regarding the real word and tainted by a red mist.

[Coventrysucks]

and i am not going to respond to your outrageous and ridiculous comparison with the famine situation in Africa.

I am not comparing it to famine in Africa, merely demonstrating that what is outrageous and ridiculous is the assertion that Ferrari should be in F1 because of "tradition".

What about "tradition" makes famine abhorrent but Ferrari good?

Nothing - so it is not a term that should be used.

[henk4]

If Mr. Pavlov wouldn't have had his dog he could have used you and FIA to prove his theory.

[Coventrysucks]

they are very clearly lacking any objectivity regarding the real word and tainted by a red mist.

So your response is not to show where I am wrong in saying that Mosley lacks diplomacy or professionalism in his ambiguous comments that are left wide open to interpretation, but suggest I am insane?

I am well aware of the "reality" of the situation, but I do not feel obliged to be "on the fence" of every argument and furnish every debate with a "reasoned" argument; I am allowed to "take sides" whenever I choose.

I am a McLaren fan, so why should I not follow the example of the Tifosi and attempt to slander and insult all opposition, at every turn?

I cannot believe that you are not familiar with the concept of political "spin".

[Matra et Alpine]

I am allowed to "take sides" whenever I choose.

I am a McLaren fan, so why should I not follow the example of the Tifosi and attempt to slander and insult all opposition, at every turn?

I cannot believe that you are not familiar with the concept of political "spin".
Lost the "argument" by supporting the activity if it was aligned with your views :(

And so comments please on Ron Dennis quote ..."We do not, and have not, manipulated Grands Prix unless there are some exceptional circumstances."

If we chose to pick apart peoples words with bias then we will always see what we want to see :)

[Coventrysucks]

Lost the "argument" by supporting the activity if it was aligned with your views :(

Sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Who lost what argument by supporting what activity aligned with what views?


If we chose to pick apart peoples words with bias then we will always see what we want to see :)

People can interpret your words, but you can choose which words you give them to interpret.

That is what "spin" and diplomacy are all about - giving words and situations an alternative meaning. You can do it yourself, or leave it to others, depending on what you say.

Using the existing examples of Mosley or Dennis:

"Ferrari will be treated equally, should it be necessary"

"McLaren don't rig races, unless there are exceptional circumstances"

These are open to interpretation, people can look at them and say "ah, but..."

A more diplomatic approach would be to leave no doubt in your words:

"Ferrari will be treated equally"

"McLaren don't rig races"

Should the President of the FIA allow people to infer a subtext to his words, when he is in such a position, and on such a sensitive subject where many people are already keen to see an ulterior motive?