McLaren gone for 2007 + 2008. [RUMOUR]

[Coventrysucks]

and???

You are taking a rational observation and reaching an irrational conclusion by making seemingly logical but unsupported assumptions.

Observation:
De la Rosa asked a Bridgestone technician about CO2

Conclusion:
Everyone at McLaren saw and used Ferrari data

A bit of a leap.

[Coventrysucks]

And according to Ferrari, they were never allowed to present their version of the case, which was the initial reasoning and ground for their appeal post-July hearing...

Ferrari has no reason to "present their version of the case".

The FIA is accusing McLaren of breaking rules, therefore it is up to the FIA/WMSC to "present a case", not Ferrari.

If you are accused of a crime - it is not the victims that prosecute you in court.

FIA is guessing, and rightly so in my view that someone else must have known about the information that De la Rosa and Alonso talked about.

They may be guessing, and they may be right.

However, is it not the duty of the governing body of the sport to find the truth, and find prove their case beyond doubt?

Is a "guess" really appropriate for the governing body's precedent setting ruling, that virtually guarantees one team the championship for two seasons in a row?

We don't know and either way no one can say McLaren just took something and copied it.

Yes we do, as McLaren keeps records of where ideas first originated, discussed, and how they developed.

They offered those records to the WMSC, who decided not to review them.

If McLaren used Ferrari's ideas, there would be signs within those records that do not follow the typical "pattern", and would prove McLaren guilty.

Why would the WMSC not want to look at evidence that could prove McLaren guilty (or, more likely, innocent)?

But this year since everyone is running on the same 4 donuts every race, knowing what the benchmark will be for that given tire will save them time to catch up to Ferrari.

McLaren have Bridgestone technicians.

Their job is to help McLaren find the optimum use of the tyres.

Why would McLaren need to see Ferrari's set ups for a car with radically different aero and weight packages, when they have technicians sat there with much greater knowledge of the tyres?
__________________________________________________ ______________

Why would McLaren cheat?

They are one of the most successful teams in the sport, with 8 Constructor's and 11 Driver's championship titles, and have typically been 2nd or 3rd in recent seasons. They have been through much less successful times - the mid-nineties, for instance - why would they suddenly need to cheat now?

McLaren's philosophy is to use experience - they aren't continually hiring new staff from Ferrari, Williams, Renault every year to plunder information legitimately, but develop their own ideas in-house, and evolve those ideas.

Cheating in this manner is the antithesis of this approach, why would they suddenly do this?

Why would they be so clumsy about it?

McLaren pride themselves in being the most "professional" team on the grid.

Why would they say "Ok, we're going to cheat. Keep this totally secret, apart from you, Coughlan, Alonso and de la Rosa, feel free to send incriminating information between yourselves freely!"

Why would they so carefully wipe all evidence of Ferrari data away, leaving only Alonso and de la Rosa's email accounts?

What would they gain from it?

The '07 car was finished, barring minor revisions, and now the '08 car is almost complete.

Any of the Ferrari data could not be realistically incorporated into either of those designs - because the Ferrari car is radically different in its philosophy to the McLaren car. Even a braking system would need thorough revision to integrate it with the existing hardware and software of the car.

If they only want a "short cut" of which ideas work, what is worth pursuing, why would they risk being excluded from the championship and fined when they could do what every other team does, and just hire Stepney, or someone else, to exactly the same end?

McLaren has everything to loose and very little to gain by using Ferrari data, it sounds more like a rash, desperate, "all or nothing" venture - like Toyota, much investment, but nothing to show for it; copy the Ferrari car and hope success will follow.
__________________________________________________ ______________

I don't know for sure who at McLaren knew about the data, or if it was used.

All I can do is look at the evidence, and I see nothing that conclusively proves the Ferrari/FIA case against them.

The penalty seems rash, and totally out of proportion to the amount of time spent examining the case, the amount of evidence shown, and the ultimate lack of proof of McLaren's guilt.

[henk4]

You are taking a rational observation and reaching an irrational conclusion by making seemingly logical but unsupported assumptions.

Observation:
De la Rosa asked a Bridgestone technician about CO2

Conclusion:
Everyone at McLaren saw and used Ferrari data

A bit of a leap.

I did not conclude: Everyone....

[henk4]

Ferrari has no reason to "present their version of the case".


Yes we do, as McLaren keeps records of where ideas first originated, discussed, and how they developed.

Why would they be so clumsy about it?

Ever heard of the concept of "witness"?

Yes, and you would assume that in those records they would mention where they saw the application of an idea for the first time? (in plain words, where they stole it from?)

The real question is why have they been so clumsy about it....

[Coventrysucks]

Ever heard of the concept of "witness"?

Yes, but the witness does not prosecute.

Ferrari should have given their evidence to the WMSC, and then it should be up to the WMSC to review all the evidence, and examine witnesses.

As it was, Ferrari's lawyer, Nigel Tozzi, was asking all the questions, despite the fact that he wasn't allowed to see certain items of McLaren's evidence, due to its confidential nature.

So, Ferrari still didn't get to prosecute their case fully.

Yes, and you would assume that in those records they would mention where they saw the application of an idea for the first time? (in plain words, where they stole it from?)

You very rarely sit down, and suddenly arrive at something like an adjustable brake balance system, out of the blue, whilst picking your nose and gazing out of the window.

There is provenance, a design will evolve over time, from a specific set of needs.

It will be fairly obvious if an idea appears that is totally unconnected with anything that has been discussed before, or is radically different in approach.

Patrick Lowe says that such a "spectacular idea" happens roughly once a year, so if you suddenly get 10 "ideas" that are at odds with what already exists on a project, it would be noticeable.

They may, for instance, suddenly explore an idea without explanation, but then it would still be up to the WMSC to prove that knowledge of the system came from Stepney, and not looking at pictures of the car, etc (i.e. conventional, regular F1 stealing).

[henk4]

You very rarely sit down, and suddenly arrive at something like an adjustable brake balance system, out of the blue, whilst picking your nose and gazing out of the window.

There is provenance, a design will evolve over time, from a specific set of needs.

It will be fairly obvious if an idea appears that is totally unconnected with anything that has been discussed before, or is radically different in approach.

Patrick Lowe says that such a "spectacular idea" happens roughly once a year, so if you suddenly get 10 "ideas" that are at odds with what already exists on a project, it would be noticeable.

They may, for instance, suddenly explore an idea without explanation, but then it would still be up to the WMSC to prove that knowledge of the system came from Stepney, and not looking at pictures of the car, etc (i.e. conventional, regular F1 stealing).

you go a long to prove that FIA not wanting to see those McLaren notes was indeed the right thing to do....

[RacingManiac]

so um, yeah...

autosport.com - F1 News: FIA: McLaren planned to use Ferrari data

and

autosport.com - F1 News: McLaren apologise unreservedly to the FIA

[henk4]

that will greatly affect the status of holiness that McLaren has achieved in the eyes of some....

[#3 Tasman Bloke]

I definently think McLaren should be banned because spying on other teams is not on. It's showing the ugly side of F1 and it's continuing to tumble down the drain at a million miles per hour...

[Jack_Bauer]

It appears the F1 'Spygate' story just won't go away!

An article emerged in the Independent on Sunday revealing that apparently the World Motor Sport Council that ruled on the record $100 million fine for McLaren was in breach of the FIA's own statutes...

The McLaren Formula One team starts today's British Grand Prix trailing its rival Ferrari in the standings, but it could be in for a timely boost as questions are raised about the validity of the $100m (£50m) fine slapped on it last year.

The fine, the largest in the history of the sport, was handed out by F1's governing body, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), amid claims of espionage. But it appears to have been in breach of the statutes on which the FIA was founded.

The Surrey-based team was fined after its chief designer was found to have been in possession of a confidential dossier from rival Ferrari. McLaren was hauled before the FIA's World Motor Sport Council (WMSC), which banned it from last year's constructors' championship and issued the $100m penalty. With the team destabilised, McLaren's Lewis Hamilton lost the drivers' title to Ferrari's Kimi Raikkonen by just one point.

However, not everyone who voted on the fine may have been authorised to do so. According to Article 14 of the FIA statutes, the WMSC "shall consist of ... a total of 26 members who, with the exception of the president, must represent an ASN [national association] having at least one event entered on the international sporting calendar of the current year." It doesn't seem that this rule has been followed.

F1's billionaire boss, Bernie Ecclestone, sits on the WMSC, but does not represent an ASN. Neither does the former Ferrari team principal Jean Todt. Although Mr Todt did not vote on the McLaren case, his authority to vote on other WMSC matters remains open to question. While both are "members by right" on the council, it is arguably not the intention behind Article 14 that Mr Ecclestone and Mr Todt should be exempt from the requirement to represent an ASN.

If members of the WMSC have failed to meet the requirements of Article 14, the council has no jurisdiction to support its actions, since the statutes are the source of its power.

Any decisions taken in these circumstances would be ultra vires and possibly void. But with no challenge having been issued at the time, such decisions still stand, however the question mark remains.

Pitpass.com ran an interesting follow-up article too - pitpass - the latest, hottest F1, GP2, GP2 Asia & A1GP news

Of course, the revelation doesn't just have an impact on the McLaren verdict. It brings into doubt any of the hearings and rulings held and handed down by the WMSC with Bernie and/or Jean Todt sitting on the voting panel...

[henk4]

so what is the issue, the level of the fine or a vote on the question whether McLaren was guilty or not.

[Jack_Bauer]

so what is the issue, the level of the fine or a vote on the question whether McLaren was guilty or not.

The issue in terms of this case is that a number of those who voted on the decision to fine McLaren had absolutely no right to do so. As the article states, given that McLaren didn't appeal on these grounds earlier and have already paid the balance of the fine, there is probably not much that they can do about it now.

In a wider sense it certainly raises severe doubts over the competency of the FIA and WMSC, at a time when confidence in the FIA is at a pretty low ebb after a certain 'other issue' earlier this year. They are there to make the big decisions and apply the laws of the sport, which in some cases can result in enormous amounts of money exchanging hands in the way of fines. Yet it appears they are incapable of following even their own very basic rules.

It doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the powers that be...

[henk4]

again, was the vote cast on the absolute question of guilt of McLaren or only on the level of punishment?

[Matra et Alpine]

and how many were present and voted ?
If there's over 26 ASNs then they were quorate.
If the majority ( excluding the non-voters ) still won then again, it's legal.
It's generally best NOT to rely on Briotish journalists on things like FACTS

[henk4]

and how many were present and voted ?
If there's over 26 ASNs then they were quorate.
If the majority ( excluding the non-voters ) still won then again, it's legal.
It's generally best NOT to rely on Briotish journalists on things like FACTS

If it had been a fact I am sure the well paid McLaren lawyers would have picked it up...