Welcome back Jenson?
Discussion
Disastrous said:
Likes Fast Cars said:
deadslow said:
andyps said:
deadslow said:
Alonso may have reported this to Ron, but he reported it to no-one else. The level of (wilful, Daily Mail style) ignorance on this topic is depressing.
The level of ignorance was why I didn't point out that it was Ron who reported it to Max Mosley himself, after Alonso threatened to do so, quite possibly at the point Ron himself found out that two Spaniards in team had used the information received more than almost anyone else. I believed then, and still believe now, that Ron reported it of honour to the team and a sense of doing the right thing having found others had done wrong within McLaren.One was a senior McLaren engineer, which is a poor reflection of the culture within McLaren at the time.
I consider Ron Dennis mis-managed the situation (he now admits as much), and, in the process, threw away both World championships and invited a $100m fine. I doubt Wolf/Lauda would have demonstrated such hubris. Renault, that same year, had stolen just as much material from other teams, but kept their heads down. Maybe scores were being settled by Mosley/FIA versus RD, but that was Ron's problem, not Alonso's.
I do not know why RD acted the way he did. And I do not pretend to know.
When most of us were expecting the dawn of a golden era at McLaren, instead we watched them self-destruct.
The trend since seems to bear out the belief that their management is poor. They have had loads of money for years, talented staff, and brilliant drivers, but put it all together and what do you get - they only just managed to scrape past Force India - their management has been in meltdown.
I think RD's recent analysis of events, i.e. 'we all seemed to get it wrong and got sucked into a disaster', is about right, and refreshingly open and honest.
I hope that next year we, once again, have the opportunity to witness a resurgence at McLaren. Jenson and Fred are a class pairing.
You mention "English" employees as being the cheats (at Macca and Fezza) yet it is evident from all that has been said and done that the 2 Spaniards were the main protagonists.
The slimy Spaniard is the one who did the dirty deal in moving teams, from Macca (via Renault with his mate Flav), to Fezza. Fact.
As stated: "...Ron reported it of honour to the team and a sense of doing the right thing having found others had done wrong within McLaren" in my view you've just confirmed and endorsed what was said, Ron acted with honour. Shame he wasn't as honourable in his public mutterings regarding the selection process of his 2015 driver dealings (sorry, I can't let that one go!).
You've said "on the one hand, you state...." but no other hand to counter it...?
I love the notion that Ron acted out of honour. Nobidy in F1 ever, has disadvantaged themselves for honour have they??
OK, yes, something about piss poor management and that if Ron acted to go into damage limitation / act with honour or whatever then ... oh f
k it, it's Sunday evening and I need (another) beer!Smollet said:
Disastrous said:
What's happenrd to 'the other hand'?
You've said "on the one hand, you state...." but no other hand to counter it...?
I love the notion that Ron acted out of honour. Nobidy in F1 ever, has disadvantaged themselves for honour have they??
I believe Stirling Moss did. You've said "on the one hand, you state...." but no other hand to counter it...?
I love the notion that Ron acted out of honour. Nobidy in F1 ever, has disadvantaged themselves for honour have they??
blueg33 said:
At the risk of being controversial, I think JB and Alonso will be pretty close, if they can't get the car set up to suit JB then Alonso will probably do better over the season.
Totally agree - if JB gets the car he wants, then he will be right up there with FA imho, but suspect FA will be just too strong overall.Disastrous said:
What's happenrd to 'the other hand'?
You've said "on the one hand, you state...." but no other hand to counter it...?
I love the notion that Ron acted out of honour. Nobidy in F1 ever, has disadvantaged themselves for honour have they??
Coulthard in Melbourne when the McLarens lapped the entire field and he was leading but deferred to Hakkinen as they said 'whoever gets to the first corner first will win'?You've said "on the one hand, you state...." but no other hand to counter it...?
I love the notion that Ron acted out of honour. Nobidy in F1 ever, has disadvantaged themselves for honour have they??
blueg33 said:
At the risk of being controversial, I think JB and Alonso will be pretty close, if they can't get the car set up to suit JB then Alonso will probably do better over the season.
Let's hope they are close and I'm sure they will be (JB fanboy stuff and all of that aside). But let's hope JB's level of experience and confidence he has from being at Macca since 2010 comes to the fore and sees him well ahead of his "team mate" at the end of the season.
MissChief said:
Disastrous said:
What's happenrd to 'the other hand'?
You've said "on the one hand, you state...." but no other hand to counter it...?
I love the notion that Ron acted out of honour. Nobidy in F1 ever, has disadvantaged themselves for honour have they??
Coulthard in Melbourne when the McLarens lapped the entire field and he was leading but deferred to Hakkinen as they said 'whoever gets to the first corner first will win'?You've said "on the one hand, you state...." but no other hand to counter it...?
I love the notion that Ron acted out of honour. Nobidy in F1 ever, has disadvantaged themselves for honour have they??
MissChief said:
The general consensus was that Alonso had told Briatore, his Manager. Briatore and Max were apparently good friends and Max confirmed a few years later that when Ron called him and told him, he already knew because Briatore told him himself. I also heard that Alonso didn't actually tell anyone, Ron was just worried he would go through with the threat and tried to pre-empt things.
I'm not sure I would believe Mosley before, well, just about anyone.From the reports of the incident between RD and FA, which have not been questioned or called into doubt during the enquiry, Alonso told Dennis what he'd been doing (i.e. cheating) and Dennis left the meeting and immediately informed Mosley. Alonso had another meeting immediately afterwards, in which, some suggest, he withdrew his threat although there is no record that I can find of any blackmail on his behalf, but by that time Dennis had already informed Mosley. What is clear that Dennis did so without lawyers.
Many might feel that his actions were those of an innocent when confronted by an allegation of impropriety in his company of which he had no previous knowledge. Such actions would probably, in a proper court, not an FIA one, have been taken as supporting a defence of lack of previous knowledge.
What is unknown, at least outside of Dennis' inner circle of confidants, is Dennis' motivation. Any guesses as to what this was makes the point of view of the commentator clear, rather than Dennis' motivation.
There is no suggestion in the report of Alonso telling anyone previously.
The whole affair as run by Mosley was unusual to say the least. There was no evidence to show that information from the dossier, that was copied in a public photocopying booth and some was left behind to be, miraculously, found by a Ferrari fanatic who was able to recognise it for what it was, was in the designs of the McL car. There were minor bits of the brakes and suspension that could have come from the dossier or could have come from looking at the Ferrari on the grid.
All the report states is that they chose not to believe that Dennis was cheating. There was never any proof that he did cheat. None. Zilch. Zip. This is quite clear in the report. No proof.
The main cheats were Coughlan, albeit a McL employee, and Stepney, a Ferrari employee. What is quite clear from the report (and Coughlan's acceptance of guilt) is that these two acted in their own selfish interests. They hawked the information up and down the pitlane but no one took them up on it.
The other cheats were Alonso and, to a greater extent, Pdl Rosa and one or two engineers in testing. None of these were punished in any way, shape or form. The two contracted drivers were absolved on their sins, Mosley playing pope there, despite the fact that their evidence was not critical to the investigation.
Hamilton came out of the situation well. Despite the other two drivers admitting cheating, he said he had nothing to fear and rejected Mosley's offer. I have to admit the bloke went up in my estimation then. Mosley was, in those (thankfully long dead) days quite important as he was Ecclestone's man. Lots of power there. But LH didn't seem arsed.
If you read the report from McL on the findings of Mosley you will see that they refute virtually all allegations, albeit in legalese. This is even more unusual than Mosley's running of the enquiry. No one guilty of a discipline offence can reject the findings, but McL did, and not subtly.
The Stepneygate saga was badly handled by Mosley. It was, in essence, nothing more than two trusted individuals acting in their own interests. Whilst RD perhaps should be held responsible for the behaviour of one of his most senior employees, the same should go for Ferrari, and out of the two, Stepney would appear to have been the instigator, corrupting someone whose behaviour, up until then, had been exemplary.
Few would suggest that Dennis is the second messiah, that he acts only selflessly or that he has never told a lie. However, the one thing going for him is that there can be even fewer who would trust Mosley before him.
I know a chap whose job involved negotiating contracts with other business leaders. He was involved, although marginally, in the sponsorship negotiations between his company and Dennis. He said that once Dennis agreed to something, you could trust it. He'd never known anyone like that before.
You suggest Mosley and Briatore were mates. Know a person by his friends.
I'm not sure which person comes out of that worse.
The one unsupported rumour, with similar amounts of evidence as a suggestion as to Dennis' motivation in telling Mosley, that I like is that this broke the camel's back as far as Ecclestone was concerned. He had lost control of his little me. Lucky for him, Mosley's reputation was destroyed a little later by the revelations of him buying women for sexual acts so, it would appear, we were denied the spectacle of a battle between the two sides of the sport. Shame, but then, there would have only been one outcome.
Dennis survived Stepneygate. I'm not sure Mosley did. Dennis still runs his team, the great Mosley is every now and again on daytime TV. Or so I'm told.
However, I'd be the first to say that it is unlikely that any team manager gets to F1 by being Mr nice guy. Dennis is one of the big three - with Williams and Head - who have stayed in the sport and made it what it is today. When they set the pit lane on fire or tell their drivers to drive into a wall, then we can, perhaps, be less grateful towards them. But until then, let's give them the benefit of any doubt as to their motivation.
Both eloquently and elegantly written Derek.
Speaking of the friendship with these guys (Mosley, Bernie, Flav, and even Todt the terrible) I know for a fact from my past days working for a major company which at that time was a sponsor of F1 that there were some, shall we say, "shady" get togethers on a regular basis at various race locations around the world.....
Speaking of the friendship with these guys (Mosley, Bernie, Flav, and even Todt the terrible) I know for a fact from my past days working for a major company which at that time was a sponsor of F1 that there were some, shall we say, "shady" get togethers on a regular basis at various race locations around the world.....
MissChief said:
Was Briatore at Benetton when they modified the fuel rig which then proceeded to barbecue Verstappen? Was there any evidence that Briatore know anything about it?
I always got the impression that Flav wasn't bothered by minor details such as technology and only cared for the ends not the means of how to win a title so it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't know anything about it. On the other hand yes that other hand it wouldn't surprise either if he did. One thing we can be fairly certain is that it wasn't his idea. MissChief said:
Was Briatore at Benetton when they modified the fuel rig which then proceeded to barbecue Verstappen? Was there any evidence that Briatore know anything about it?
Briatore, Walkshaw and others out of the same mold ran the team. I have little doubt that their control over it was absolute.The hearing, if even such a basic term is not conferring too much dignity on it, came to no real decisions. However, there was no investigation as such, despite it being one of the most dangerous situations I can remember.
There was an interesting article on the hearing, running to 8,500 words, by Sylt on Pitpass.com (back in the old days). It is no longer on the website.
Sylt’s article on the Carman/Mosley effect on the fuel filter incident is sycophantic in the extreme. Everyone is a genius, the best ever and highly intelligent. It is also rather flowery, mentioning Mosley strolling to his office, Eccs’ Learjet, watches and deathbeds. Excluding those distractions, the basis of the expose is as follows:
Sylt said:
“Max Mosley, the president of the FIA, stepped over the mark of probity. He effectively 'fixed' the outcome of an FIA World Council disciplinary hearing. Mosley may have felt he was safe to do so and justified it by 'it being in the best interests of the sport'. Only he knew everything that had been done to prevent the certainty of the Benetton team being excluded from the 1994 world championship for blatant cheating and endangering its mechanics' safety.”
The occasion was the rushed WC hearing into the Verstappen fire at the German GP, not the first time the country had been part of a holocaust. George Carman, the seemingly troubled QC to the very rich and ultra rich, had been called in by Briatore to defend his team against the allegation of virtually cold-blooded systematic cheating and putting his drivers, his team and the visitors to the GP at risk from being burnt. As it was, Verstappen and half a dozen mechanics suffered burns.
Eccs (described as ‘an extraordinary visionary in these situations’ believed that MSc would be disqualified from the 94 championship and Benetton also, and heavily penalised, for fiddling with the fuel rig (that was the first year for the new refuelling regs). It would appear that most reporters were also extraordinary visionaries as everyone – even me – thought it as well.
Benetton had Luciano Benetton as the boss and also a rogues’ gallery of Briatore, Walkinshaw and Brawn.
Benetton, the team, had three explanations for the fuel rig disaster: that is had permission from the FIA to remove the filter, that it was a fault with the system (world leaders in aircraft refuelling, Intertechniques, the suppliers as the system were not amused) and that some mechanic had seen fit to nick it.
Benetton also used a company of very dubious references to exonerate the team.
Schumacher was seen as the way to get more German viewers to F1 and having him kicked out (he was already subject of discipline regarding a skid plate) would not have helped. Further, Mosley wanted him to fill the void Senna had left.
Sylt said: “Benetton had tried everything — launch control, traction control, flexible bodywork, lower ride height and special fuels, all of which were outlawed. One former Benetton mechanic, who now works at Williams, quipped: "The only thing we didn't have on the car was cruise control.” But with the fuel rig, Carman's client had been caught red-handed in the worst of circumstances, changed its story three times and upset the FIA.”
Carman, Mosley (who was in effect judge and part of the jury) and Eccs (via Sylt: “Ecclestone was there because he was unashamedly lobbying for Benetton to be let off so Michael Schumacher could take the championship. He wanted to give Carman all the help he could, although technically he was out of order as he was a member of the following day's jury”) got together the night before the hearing (whilst the discipline wasn’t a court of law, if this had been brought up in any claim against the FIA the civil court would not have been amused) and hatched a plan.
Benetton would plead guilty and Mosley would refuse to accept any evidence of what Benetton did wrong. He would then ‘sum up’ although what he was summing up was just a plea of guilty and leave the jury to accept his suggestion of no penalty.
And this is what happened. So despite pleading to removing the fuel filter and so putting lives at risk, Benetton received no penalty. Further, despite both cars – MSc and Verstappen – enjoying ultra fast pit stops, more than a second faster, they got no penalty either.
Ian Titchmarsh, the prosecution, was not aware of the decisions made about his case. Indeed, with no prosecution witnesses, he had no case.
Mosley was attacked in the press and at briefings but he just said that it was a way to ensure that the spectacle of motor sport went on. In the same way fining McLaren $100,000,00 for not setting fire to cars, mechanics and part of Germany was good for the sport.
There is little doubt that the 94 WDC was corrupt. We will never know whether Schumacher would have won it without all the aids and extra fast pit stops.
What this does show, however, is that Mosley did not view the sport as something that should be fair and open. This incident should be taken into consideration when suggestions of a pro Ferrari bias by the FIA are talked about.
So believe it or not. The occasion was the rushed WC hearing into the Verstappen fire at the German GP, not the first time the country had been part of a holocaust. George Carman, the seemingly troubled QC to the very rich and ultra rich, had been called in by Briatore to defend his team against the allegation of virtually cold-blooded systematic cheating and putting his drivers, his team and the visitors to the GP at risk from being burnt. As it was, Verstappen and half a dozen mechanics suffered burns.
Eccs (described as ‘an extraordinary visionary in these situations’ believed that MSc would be disqualified from the 94 championship and Benetton also, and heavily penalised, for fiddling with the fuel rig (that was the first year for the new refuelling regs). It would appear that most reporters were also extraordinary visionaries as everyone – even me – thought it as well.
Benetton had Luciano Benetton as the boss and also a rogues’ gallery of Briatore, Walkinshaw and Brawn.
Benetton, the team, had three explanations for the fuel rig disaster: that is had permission from the FIA to remove the filter, that it was a fault with the system (world leaders in aircraft refuelling, Intertechniques, the suppliers as the system were not amused) and that some mechanic had seen fit to nick it.
Benetton also used a company of very dubious references to exonerate the team.
Schumacher was seen as the way to get more German viewers to F1 and having him kicked out (he was already subject of discipline regarding a skid plate) would not have helped. Further, Mosley wanted him to fill the void Senna had left.
Sylt said: “Benetton had tried everything — launch control, traction control, flexible bodywork, lower ride height and special fuels, all of which were outlawed. One former Benetton mechanic, who now works at Williams, quipped: "The only thing we didn't have on the car was cruise control.” But with the fuel rig, Carman's client had been caught red-handed in the worst of circumstances, changed its story three times and upset the FIA.”
Carman, Mosley (who was in effect judge and part of the jury) and Eccs (via Sylt: “Ecclestone was there because he was unashamedly lobbying for Benetton to be let off so Michael Schumacher could take the championship. He wanted to give Carman all the help he could, although technically he was out of order as he was a member of the following day's jury”) got together the night before the hearing (whilst the discipline wasn’t a court of law, if this had been brought up in any claim against the FIA the civil court would not have been amused) and hatched a plan.
Benetton would plead guilty and Mosley would refuse to accept any evidence of what Benetton did wrong. He would then ‘sum up’ although what he was summing up was just a plea of guilty and leave the jury to accept his suggestion of no penalty.
And this is what happened. So despite pleading to removing the fuel filter and so putting lives at risk, Benetton received no penalty. Further, despite both cars – MSc and Verstappen – enjoying ultra fast pit stops, more than a second faster, they got no penalty either.
Ian Titchmarsh, the prosecution, was not aware of the decisions made about his case. Indeed, with no prosecution witnesses, he had no case.
Mosley was attacked in the press and at briefings but he just said that it was a way to ensure that the spectacle of motor sport went on. In the same way fining McLaren $100,000,00 for not setting fire to cars, mechanics and part of Germany was good for the sport.
There is little doubt that the 94 WDC was corrupt. We will never know whether Schumacher would have won it without all the aids and extra fast pit stops.
What this does show, however, is that Mosley did not view the sport as something that should be fair and open. This incident should be taken into consideration when suggestions of a pro Ferrari bias by the FIA are talked about.
The source was documents, comments by those involved and a remarkable (all but deathbed) confession by Carman himself. The suggestion was that he wanted to absolve himself before the end. I'm not sure if this one on its own was sufficient.
Carman was, by all accounts, a genius. A brain the size of, if not a planet, then as effective as anyone else's on this one. A lawyer wrote about him that he wasted his intellect on petty matters. The person was probably referring to this case, amongst others.
The best comment I read about the removal of the fuel filter was that if indeed it did speed up the pitstops by over 1 sec, then people would have noticed and it would have been stopped.
If anyone wants the full article, then by all means PM me. However, the above precis covers all salient points and his style, at least in this particular article, can be a bit wearing.
MissChief said:
So basically it was 'Max and Bernie wanted Schumacher to win and the German fans to keep watching so let Benetton off but Max and Ron didn't get on so Max wanted McLaren (and therefore Ron) punished in some way'? Talk about favouritism!
That is my interpretation of Sylt's article. Mosley comes over as a rather odd fellow, even before one takes into account his peculiar sexual appetite. For clarification, just in case anyone wants to have a go at me for being prudish, I have no problem with anything that is done by consenting adults which doesn't scare the horses.
He was a good looking bloke when he was younger. Quite remarkably so. A fair driver as well. He tried his hand at running a team (MARCH) but, despite all his educational advantages, the likes of Williams/Head, Dennis, Tyrell and others, including Eccs, were better.
He wasn't particularly noteworthy as a lawyer, team manager or FIA president.
Ballestre, for all the similarity between them, certainly over politics, was more or less self made and was successful in business, building a massive media empire, before opting for F1. Whilst he had one or two traits which some might say were not the most useful when it came to running an international business, he left motor sport in a stronger state than when he took over, not something one can accuse MM of.
He seemed to take a dislike to Dennis, which was, it seems, reciprocated. Mosley sees himself as one of the upper class establishment and Dennis as a spannerman. It must hurt to see Dennis with lots of money and a valuable business, all from his own efforts. He was able to suffer a $100m loss without much in the way of ripples.
The Stepneygate fiasco, not so much the actions of the two main players, but the punishment, would seem to have galvanised the sport. It didn't take long for Mosley's influence to wane and for him to experience difficulties. I've never seen myself as vindictive but I do smile to myself when I think of the downfall of Mosley.
I think the sport is still suffering from the fall out of those days, and will continue to do so until there is some balance in the governance and running of it. History shows us that if there is one person or body in charge then the sport suffers.
LDM said:
The liking for Nazi uniforms?
I never really liked the way Ballestre handled things but then I was always a Senna fan ....
There were photographs of Balestre in SS uniform during the German occupation of France. I never really liked the way Ballestre handled things but then I was always a Senna fan ....
Balstre's explanation was that this was the uniform of the resistance (I might have got a bit confused with his explanation) and sued someone who posted the picture. He won his case and was awarded the grand sum of 1 Franc.
Similarly, despite the coverage post trial, Mosley sued the Sun for suggesting that his peculiar pastime, with umpteen prostitutes, was Nazi themed.
Given that he once stood for a neo-fascist party, his father was a Hitler apologist and ran the British fascist party, and his mother - well, let's not go there - you would think that with the German uniforms, the accents, the we are Aryans and the prison garb, the Sun would have had an easy ride but the judge, bless him, thought differently, and rejected the model of the French courts and fined the paper oodles.
This was touted by Mosley as a victory for privacy but it was nothing like.
Whatever happened to that judge? He used to be in the press all the time in those days. Since that decision, which he wasn't criticised for (unlike some of his other decisions) by a higher court, he has gone below the radar.
For Europe, the war is over. Dwelling on blame and such is counter-productive. If we can leave the animals of the PIRA be (but not the soldiers of Bloody Sunday, perish the thought) then criminals from a declared war should, by now, be let go.
Balestre was dangerous. The way he ran F1 made me concerned for his mental health. Despite being aware of Mosley's pre-cons (look them up!) and previous history, I was certain that, at the very least, he could be no worse than the man he replaced. I almost got that one right.
Balestre left the world of motor sport in rude, if somewhat unstable, health. If you wanted to see world class motor racing you had a choice of F1, WSC and WRC. I took in all three sports one year, making four events when the European GP came to the UK.
When Mosley's fingers were prised from the job, motor racing was somewhat different.
Whatever else you could blame Balestre for - and there was a list - no one would suggest that he was not a motor sport fan.
I didn't like the bloke, thought some of his decisions were partial, and dangerous, but then we had Mosley.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff