So, Tomorrow's the day! (FIA World Council)
Poll: So, Tomorrow's the day! (FIA World Council)
Total Members Polled: 168
Discussion
It would appear that Alonso was only faster than Massa because he was allowed to have the wick on his engine turned up. (James Allen's blog is my source.) I know we all thought this but it is nice to have it confirmed 'cause now we can say it on here without being accused of being anti Ferrari.
The WMSC also stated that there was a lack of evidence.
Still the one good thing to come out of this WMSC fiasco is the fact that Alonso cannot have any moral claim to the WDC.
I want a close finish to the WDC and five drivers in the frame with six races to go certainly promised that. The one thing that concerned me about the WMSC was that it might have put Alonso out of the running. So I have to say that, for the first time in all the years of following F1 I am glad that a driver span off. If Alonso hadn't made that unforced error he would have had an unfair advantage.
The WMSC also stated that there was a lack of evidence.
Still the one good thing to come out of this WMSC fiasco is the fact that Alonso cannot have any moral claim to the WDC.
I want a close finish to the WDC and five drivers in the frame with six races to go certainly promised that. The one thing that concerned me about the WMSC was that it might have put Alonso out of the running. So I have to say that, for the first time in all the years of following F1 I am glad that a driver span off. If Alonso hadn't made that unforced error he would have had an unfair advantage.
flemke said:
35secToNuvolari said:
What Ferrari did looked wrong, but I don't know what they actually did wrong. They should get their hundred grand back.
They induced Massa to act contrary to his own personal interests in order to benefit another driver.flemke said:
35secToNuvolari said:
What Ferrari did looked wrong, but I don't know what they actually did wrong. They should get their hundred grand back.
They induced Massa to act contrary to his own personal interests in order to benefit another driver.I found it interesting that they had to tell Massa four times that Alonso was faster than him (we got to hear the last one broadcast; "Do. You. Understand.").
It must be a giant crap on Alonso's pride that the whole world knows Ferrari were giving him a car advantage and he still couldn't win without team orders.
35secToNuvolari said:
flemke said:
35secToNuvolari said:
What Ferrari did looked wrong, but I don't know what they actually did wrong. They should get their hundred grand back.
They induced Massa to act contrary to his own personal interests in order to benefit another driver.Some drivers have been heavily criticised on here by certain contributors when they put their own personal interest above that of the team.
The team knew what trigger to pull, how to phrase it, what would convince him.
What Ferrari did certainly looked wrong. It was also patently against the regulations. Whether this is 'wrong' or not depends on individual's interpretation of right and wrong. However, if it is against the rules it is cheating. No interpretation required there.
35secToNuvolari said:
flemke said:
35secToNuvolari said:
What Ferrari did looked wrong, but I don't know what they actually did wrong. They should get their hundred grand back.
They induced Massa to act contrary to his own personal interests in order to benefit another driver.I don't find it unpalatable. The entrants are not drivers, but teams. The teams should be allowed to do whatever they wish in pursuit of their own interests (without illegitimately interfering with the interests of the other teams). Nonetheless, so long as the stupid rule is in place, it should be enforced. Clearly the instructions to Massa, made after Alonso's strenuous complaints, contravened the "Team orders" bar.
The Ferrari defenders seem to think that the only form of team orders could be, "We order you to pull over now, Felipe. Refuse and you'll be sacked." Of course, there is a far greater range of mechanisms available to a team: code, signal, hint, implication, scenario-based tactics that require no live communications.
Massa deliberately slowed to allow Alonso to come past him. That is indisputable.
Therefore the only question is: Did Massa slow purely of his own accord, because, owing only to his personal awareness of the WDC standings, he believed that the honourable thing would be to give his teammate 7 free points that Massa himself was unlikely to be able to use, or did he do so because he had previously been informed by the team that they, the team, would expect him to do so, as an explicit or implied obligation of his employment by them?
Massa had known for some time that Alonso was behind him. Yet he chose not to pull over and let the man through.To the contrary, he pushed as hard as he could Once he heard certain words from Smedley, expressed in an extraordinarily deliberate, didactic manner, however, he pulled over forthwith and gave away first place to his teammte.
It is therefore obvious that Massa did not pull over out of some Peter Collins-like selflessness, but rather because his race engineer had signaled to him what the team "expected" him to do in the circumstances.
At the Turkish GP Red Bull told Webber to turn his engine down, Vettel to turn his up, and then blamed Webber for the resulting crash when Vettel tried to pass. The only explanation that I could think of for the team blaming Webber for the crash was that he had been 'instructed' to let Vettel through and ignored or misunderstood said instruction.
At the same Turkish GP I remember a radio exchange between Hamilton and the team in which Hamilton asked if Button was going to try to overtake him and the team replied 'No' just before Button did just that, then Hamilton conveniently retook the position on the very next lap. At the time I thought that this was most likely a case of 'hold position' team orders gone wrong, followed by an engineered overtake to restore the status quo. Does anyone really believe that team mates fight to the finish line after receiving the instruction to 'save fuel', or 'look after the tyres'?
At this stage of any season there is always talk of one driver supporting his team mate's championship position, usually when one team mate has a much better chance of championship success than the other. It has always happened, it will always happen, and I for one would be far happier if the teams just acknowledged the fact that they all do it. Any fans that have been shocked by what has happened, or even mildly surprised, should pay a bit more attention to how the sport works.
At the same Turkish GP I remember a radio exchange between Hamilton and the team in which Hamilton asked if Button was going to try to overtake him and the team replied 'No' just before Button did just that, then Hamilton conveniently retook the position on the very next lap. At the time I thought that this was most likely a case of 'hold position' team orders gone wrong, followed by an engineered overtake to restore the status quo. Does anyone really believe that team mates fight to the finish line after receiving the instruction to 'save fuel', or 'look after the tyres'?
At this stage of any season there is always talk of one driver supporting his team mate's championship position, usually when one team mate has a much better chance of championship success than the other. It has always happened, it will always happen, and I for one would be far happier if the teams just acknowledged the fact that they all do it. Any fans that have been shocked by what has happened, or even mildly surprised, should pay a bit more attention to how the sport works.
Derek Smith said:
35secToNuvolari said:
flemke said:
35secToNuvolari said:
What Ferrari did looked wrong, but I don't know what they actually did wrong. They should get their hundred grand back.
They induced Massa to act contrary to his own personal interests in order to benefit another driver.The mechanism Ferrari used was the same form other teams have used before. The "save fuel" messages are most likely pre-arranged as well. People don't like the look of what resulted and somehow conclude that the ugly-looking thing was brought about by cheating.
The FIA came to the right conclusion, in that there is no way to prove an order was given. How would a team ever be able to defend itself if a driver decided to move over voluntarily? As written many times before, it is very difficult to prove a negative. Instead, the FIA has to find evidence that a rule was broken.
35secToNuvolari said:
Instead, the FIA has to find evidence that a rule was broken
So why did the 100k fine stand, and how come Ferrari had to pay all the WMSC legal costs (as reported by AutoSport I think)?autosport said:
The FIA remains convinced that Ferrari did use illegal team orders at the German Grand Prix - but it decided not to push the team further at its disciplinary hearing on Wednesday because of inconsistencies in the way the rules have been applied in the past.
Motor racing's governing body issued the full hearing notes from the meeting of its World Motor Sport Council that met in Paris on Wednesday to examine the events at Hockenheim - where it explained why the Italian team had not faced further sanctions.
The report of the meeting suggests that the WMSC felt the team orders situation was so ambiguous in F1 that it would have been wrong to punish Ferrari more - even though it was sure the outfit had imposed an illegal order on Felipe Massa.
So - apparently not because they couldn't prove it - but because the whole area had been inconsistent - which is undoubtedly true.Motor racing's governing body issued the full hearing notes from the meeting of its World Motor Sport Council that met in Paris on Wednesday to examine the events at Hockenheim - where it explained why the Italian team had not faced further sanctions.
The report of the meeting suggests that the WMSC felt the team orders situation was so ambiguous in F1 that it would have been wrong to punish Ferrari more - even though it was sure the outfit had imposed an illegal order on Felipe Massa.
35secToNuvolari said:
Derek Smith said:
35secToNuvolari said:
flemke said:
35secToNuvolari said:
What Ferrari did looked wrong, but I don't know what they actually did wrong. They should get their hundred grand back.
They induced Massa to act contrary to his own personal interests in order to benefit another driver.The mechanism Ferrari used was the same form other teams have used before. The "save fuel" messages are most likely pre-arranged as well. People don't like the look of what resulted and somehow conclude that the ugly-looking thing was brought about by cheating.
The FIA came to the right conclusion, in that there is no way to prove an order was given. How would a team ever be able to defend itself if a driver decided to move over voluntarily? As written many times before, it is very difficult to prove a negative. Instead, the FIA has to find evidence that a rule was broken.
Ferrari should have been hammered over this, and had it been anyone else, they would have been!
Another reason for the masses to turn away from what should be the pinnacle of motor sport and auto innovation in search of some genuine, no holes barred competitive sport.
35secToNuvolari said:
Derek Smith said:
35secToNuvolari said:
flemke said:
35secToNuvolari said:
What Ferrari did looked wrong, but I don't know what they actually did wrong. They should get their hundred grand back.
They induced Massa to act contrary to his own personal interests in order to benefit another driver.The mechanism Ferrari used was the same form other teams have used before. The "save fuel" messages are most likely pre-arranged as well. People don't like the look of what resulted and somehow conclude that the ugly-looking thing was brought about by cheating.
The FIA came to the right conclusion, in that there is no way to prove an order was given. How would a team ever be able to defend itself if a driver decided to move over voluntarily? As written many times before, it is very difficult to prove a negative. Instead, the FIA has to find evidence that a rule was broken.
This isn't a criminal trial with people's lives at stake, it's a silly little motor race. We all know what Ferrari did. If they'd done it better, and not brought the sport into disrepute, nobody would mind. Because they mucked it up, and by so doing did bring the sport into disrepute, they should receive a genuine penalty.
Ferrari Race Engineer Rob Smedley said:
Do. You. Understand?
flemke said:
35secToNuvolari said:
flemke said:
35secToNuvolari said:
What Ferrari did looked wrong, but I don't know what they actually did wrong. They should get their hundred grand back.
They induced Massa to act contrary to his own personal interests in order to benefit another driver.I don't find it unpalatable. The entrants are not drivers, but teams. The teams should be allowed to do whatever they wish in pursuit of their own interests (without illegitimately interfering with the interests of the other teams). Nonetheless, so long as the stupid rule is in place, it should be enforced. Clearly the instructions to Massa, made after Alonso's strenuous complaints, contravened the "Team orders" bar.
The Ferrari defenders seem to think that the only form of team orders could be, "We order you to pull over now, Felipe. Refuse and you'll be sacked." Of course, there is a far greater range of mechanisms available to a team: code, signal, hint, implication, scenario-based tactics that require no live communications.
Massa deliberately slowed to allow Alonso to come past him. That is indisputable.
Therefore the only question is: Did Massa slow purely of his own accord, because, owing only to his personal awareness of the WDC standings, he believed that the honourable thing would be to give his teammate 7 free points that Massa himself was unlikely to be able to use, or did he do so because he had previously been informed by the team that they, the team, would expect him to do so, as an explicit or implied obligation of his employment by them?
Massa had known for some time that Alonso was behind him. Yet he chose not to pull over and let the man through.To the contrary, he pushed as hard as he could Once he heard certain words from Smedley, expressed in an extraordinarily deliberate, didactic manner, however, he pulled over forthwith and gave away first place to his teammte.
It is therefore obvious that Massa did not pull over out of some Peter Collins-like selflessness, but rather because his race engineer had signaled to him what the team "expected" him to do in the circumstances.
What Ferrari did might be 'down the road' from 'save fuel,' because the drivers flipped around, but I don't think it's on the other side of the line. Either both types of messages are illegal or both are legal.
flemke said:
35sectonuvolari said:
All I see is an assertion and an unsupported statement that there was a pre-race arrangement. Do we have to operate on force of personality? One can express their certainty and base it on appearance, inference, and suspicion, but none of that is ultimately persuasive. I am not a fan of rhetoric. I know, then what am I doing on the internet?
The mechanism Ferrari used was the same form other teams have used before. The "save fuel" messages are most likely pre-arranged as well. People don't like the look of what resulted and somehow conclude that the ugly-looking thing was brought about by cheating.
The FIA came to the right conclusion, in that there is no way to prove an order was given. How would a team ever be able to defend itself if a driver decided to move over voluntarily? As written many times before, it is very difficult to prove a negative. Instead, the FIA has to find evidence that a rule was broken.
Come on, bro. You know you're being ingenuous. The whole point of a "code" is to disguise the reality of the message. Even in a criminal trial with people's lives at stake, if the prosecution cannot find the smoking gun that the accused has taken care to conceal, the jury is allowed to make reasonable inferences. The mechanism Ferrari used was the same form other teams have used before. The "save fuel" messages are most likely pre-arranged as well. People don't like the look of what resulted and somehow conclude that the ugly-looking thing was brought about by cheating.
The FIA came to the right conclusion, in that there is no way to prove an order was given. How would a team ever be able to defend itself if a driver decided to move over voluntarily? As written many times before, it is very difficult to prove a negative. Instead, the FIA has to find evidence that a rule was broken.
This isn't a criminal trial with people's lives at stake, it's a silly little motor race. We all know what Ferrari did. If they'd done it better, and not brought the sport into disrepute, nobody would mind. Because they mucked it up, and by so doing did bring the sport into disrepute, they should receive a genuine penalty.
Ferrari Race Engineer Rob Smedley said:
Do. You. Understand?
Edited by 35secToNuvolari on Friday 10th September 10:38
35secToNuvolari said:
All I see is an assertion and an unsupported statement that there was a pre-race arrangement. Do we have to operate on force of personality? One can express their certainty and base it on appearance, inference, and suspicion, but none of that is ultimately persuasive.
. . .
The FIA came to the right conclusion, in that there is no way to prove an order was given.
I’ve spent a number of years of my life checking files for proof.. . .
The FIA came to the right conclusion, in that there is no way to prove an order was given.
Nothing is certain. All one can do is bring evidence to light, consider it and then come to an informed decision.
Despite what you read in the newspapers and see on television, the best evidence is circumstantial, i.e. what actually happened. This has to be assessed and the various interpretations examined and then a conclusion draw. In criminal law it is beyond a reasonable doubt although in my position all I was required to do was to assess if there was a case to answer.
However, I also needed to ‘assist’ the CPS in coming to a conclusion so I would add persuasive interpretations.
If I was assessing this situation I would take into consideration the somewhat casual attempt by Alonso to pass Massa early on. If was so poorly executed that it generated comment from Brundle.
We then had the situation of the radio message where the gap between Massa and Alonso was referred to. It was at that time 3 seconds. It was made quite clear that such a gap meant he was safe.
We then had a the radio message which was in code. ‘Do you understand?’ and the damning ‘Sorry’.
And the farce of the comments at the end of the race.
I would point out to the CPS that if Alonso was racing Massa he would have made a genuine attempt to pass. This did not happen. Not damning in itself, but persuasive.
And the 3 seconds. I’d ask the CPS to consider why the figure was deemed important enough for it to be emphasises. Their suspicion might be that there was an agreed gap that meant Massa could drive his own race as long as Alonso was far enough behind. Again, not sufficient on its own but enough to raise suspicion. Take together with the earlier overtaking attempt one might start to become very suspicious but perhaps not convinced.
The ‘understand’ and ‘sorry’ radio messages are the main bit of evidence. I would ask the CPS to consider why the ‘sorry’ was introduced. I would also mention that there were no other messages where Massa was asked if he understood. That implies that there was something special in this message. This alone would have been enough to convince me there were team orders as a function of such coded messages is that the code has to be agreed on beforehand. And sorry – well! But if we take the earlier two points into consideration then the evidence is overwhelming.
Even CPS on a bad day would have to struggle to lose this.
Nothing is certain. Apart, that is, for nothing being certain. But it would take a tremendous leap of faith taking into consideration the above circs for anyone to believe that it was all down to a magnanimous gesture on Massa’s behalf. But let us assume for the moment that it was.
So explain his conduct at the post race briefing and press interviews.
With such evidence I could convict mother Theresa of the Putney Job, even taking into consideration she was dead.
So my assertion is not unsupported. I think that there is overwhelming evidence to convince the open-minded of the fact that there were team orders.
Whether the FIA came to the ‘right’ decision is another matter. What it didn’t do was come to a decision based on the facts.
Any code would be exercising some previous order. You gotta find the that.
So, ask Massa, ask to see his contract, interview personnel, and ask for intra-team emails.
Regardless, the save-fuel messages are code, and they affect the competition.
ETA: DS-- I wanted to thank you for the effort you put into your above post.
Cheers
So, ask Massa, ask to see his contract, interview personnel, and ask for intra-team emails.
Regardless, the save-fuel messages are code, and they affect the competition.
ETA: DS-- I wanted to thank you for the effort you put into your above post.
Cheers
Edited by 35secToNuvolari on Friday 10th September 11:57
35secToNuvolari said:
There are much more straight forward ways to prove the point: ask Massa; ask to see his contract; interview personnel; ask for intra-team emails.
Or even see that data that showed both engines being turned down, then Alonso's being turned up and Massas still turned down. Then three messages from his race engineer saying Alonso is faster then a final message containing the instruction "Do.You.Understand", which eventually had the desired effect, as you saw Massa intentionally slow followed by his race engineer saying "Sory" and "Good Lad".You do not have to be a tin foil hat wearer to realise that exactly what was going on.
The FIA accept that is what went on.
Ferrari accept the $100,000 fine that was upheld (they have right of appeal, BTW- are they appealing?)
In fact, having read the judgement in full last night, it seems the only reason the FIA did not impose the penalties suggested by the Reporter (and additional 5 second penalty for Alonso relegating him to 2nd and a suspended points deduction for the team), was that Ferrari were able to successfully cast doubt on how the FIA had handled potential breaches of the same rule in the past. This would have the effect of making the punishment against them unfair relative to those other, potential breaches.
That argument, however, has no bearing on the rights or wrongs of what Ferrari did on this occassion- all it does it make it very hard to penalise Ferrari fairly.
10 Pence Short said:
35secToNuvolari said:
There are much more straight forward ways to prove the point: ask Massa; ask to see his contract; interview personnel; ask for intra-team emails.
Or even see that data that showed both engines being turned down, then Alonso's being turned up and Massas still turned down. Then three messages from his race engineer saying Alonso is faster then a final message containing the instruction "Do.You.Understand", which eventually had the desired effect, as you saw Massa intentionally slow followed by his race engineer saying "Sory" and "Good Lad".You do not have to be a tin foil hat wearer to realise that exactly what was going on.
The FIA accept that is what went on.
Ferrari accept the $100,000 fine that was upheld (they have right of appeal, BTW- are they appealing?)
In fact, having read the judgement in full last night, it seems the only reason the FIA did not impose the penalties suggested by the Reporter (and additional 5 second penalty for Alonso relegating him to 2nd and a suspended points deduction for the team), was that Ferrari were able to successfully cast doubt on how the FIA had handled potential breaches of the same rule in the past. This would have the effect of making the punishment against them unfair relative to those other, potential breaches.
That argument, however, has no bearing on the rights or wrongs of what Ferrari did on this occassion- all it does it make it very hard to penalise Ferrari fairly.
What went on could have two explanations: either Massa had to move over, or he did it by choice. The matter should be settled by just asking to see his contract and by asking him what he was doing. To insist that he was forced to move over, even though he denies it, is trying to force the alternative to be true. People want to say that his demeanor after the race contradicts his testimony. Why does he have to be happy about his choice? He probably hates Alonso, but loves the team. Why would he deny everyone who works so hard for the team a chance at winning one of the championships?
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff