McLaren lawyer seeks Hamilton title at appeal
Discussion
flemke said:
McLaren the team were not in the position to "come forward" because the only other persons who knew of the ongoing dialogue between Stepney and Coughlan were de la Rosa and Alonso, and they didn't tell anyone else.
Excuse my ignorance, but I don't get that. I understand it in the context of Ron not feeling the need to come forward...but.If those three were the only Mcmerc employees with Ferrari IP and didn't tell anybody else how did McMerc stand to gain as a whole?
Your statement seems to suggest that PDR tested exclusively for the FA side of McLaren? and that FA pit crew knew nothing about it either?
I'm not wishing to be argumentative, just interested in your POV
scuffers said:
williamp said:
I just think this:
if this had happened during the year, rather then at the last race of the year then there would be no question of the appeal and the hearing. This should be the same throughout the year, it should not be different because there are no more races left.
Exactly...if this had happened during the year, rather then at the last race of the year then there would be no question of the appeal and the hearing. This should be the same throughout the year, it should not be different because there are no more races left.
as for no advantage in cooling the fuel, if that's true, why chill it in the first place?
Very valid point about why the is fuel cooled in the first place.
AndrewW-G said:
hornetrider said:
WTF is a Ferrari lawyer doing at a trial whereby Williams and BMW are being judged for using illegal fuel????
Its a
ing joke!
Probably the same thing as the McLaren Lawyer at a trial whereby Williams and BMW are being judged for using illegal fuel???? Its a
ing joke!jules_s said:
flemke said:
McLaren the team were not in the position to "come forward" because the only other persons who knew of the ongoing dialogue between Stepney and Coughlan were de la Rosa and Alonso, and they didn't tell anyone else.
Excuse my ignorance, but I don't get that. I understand it in the context of Ron not feeling the need to come forward...but.If those three were the only Mcmerc employees with Ferrari IP and didn't tell anybody else how did McMerc stand to gain as a whole?
Your statement seems to suggest that PDR tested exclusively for the FA side of McLaren? and that FA pit crew knew nothing about it either?
I'm not wishing to be argumentative, just interested in your POV
There was never any evidence that, after the disclosure of the Ferrari flexible floor device, which disclosure the FIA sanctioned at the first hearing, anyone at McL. apart from Coughlan and two drivers saw or was told of anything from Ferrari. This is precisely why McL. did not stand to gain - the Ferrari information never went to anyone who had the ability to affect the design or operation of the cars.
Wrt the de la Rosa position, he got into the loop because he was friends with Coughlan from '99 when they were both at Arrows. DLR shared stuff with Alonso because of the Spanish affinity, but everyone at McL., including DLR and Alonso, has insisted that it never went beyond those two drivers and Coughlan.
Efectively, DLR and Alonso were a pair of guys gossiping about the Ferrari car in the context of their own McLaren car.
2p's worth - not particularly a McL fan by the way....
So, Ross Brawn has gone to Honda and will instantly forget everything that was on the Ferraris over the last few years? Sorry, but the F1 jobs merry-go-round happens all the time and the "secrets" travel with the humans. The fact that it is not on paper or a hard drive is secondary - it is normal practice and I am sure that McL have lost a lot when their staff moved jobs in the past. A Fezza employee slipping the boys at McL a disk was snidy and plain wrong, but what was his motivation? And frankly, did McL need it - from what is stated, the team didn't seem to be aware beyond the "Spanish Armada".
Now then, 3 degrees below the clearly stated allowable minimum temperature for fuel - direct transgression of a rule, there should be a penalty. Based on precedent of fuel irregularities (temp / octane etc), that should be removal of the cars from the result of the race, and the standings adjusted accordingly - elevating those drivers behind them to a new position. Net result, Hamilton wins the championship based on the hard work of the team all seacon to bring a competitive car / driver package to each grand prix, legally to the best of their knowledge despite the knowledge of the Ferrari package. Rules are rules, not guidelines when a measurement is directly stated as a maximum or minimum.
IMHO, the two issues are very different. Fuel temp - direct transgression of rules - penalty from FIA. Industrial Espionage - something for Ferrari to take up via an Intellectual Property challenge outside of F1 - in a proper court and be re-imbursed in some way if found to be wronged, keeping the FIA's nose out of it and squeaky clean.
The only problem is, which country'a legal system would try the case fairly? Italy, France, UK.... hmmm.
So, Ross Brawn has gone to Honda and will instantly forget everything that was on the Ferraris over the last few years? Sorry, but the F1 jobs merry-go-round happens all the time and the "secrets" travel with the humans. The fact that it is not on paper or a hard drive is secondary - it is normal practice and I am sure that McL have lost a lot when their staff moved jobs in the past. A Fezza employee slipping the boys at McL a disk was snidy and plain wrong, but what was his motivation? And frankly, did McL need it - from what is stated, the team didn't seem to be aware beyond the "Spanish Armada".
Now then, 3 degrees below the clearly stated allowable minimum temperature for fuel - direct transgression of a rule, there should be a penalty. Based on precedent of fuel irregularities (temp / octane etc), that should be removal of the cars from the result of the race, and the standings adjusted accordingly - elevating those drivers behind them to a new position. Net result, Hamilton wins the championship based on the hard work of the team all seacon to bring a competitive car / driver package to each grand prix, legally to the best of their knowledge despite the knowledge of the Ferrari package. Rules are rules, not guidelines when a measurement is directly stated as a maximum or minimum.
IMHO, the two issues are very different. Fuel temp - direct transgression of rules - penalty from FIA. Industrial Espionage - something for Ferrari to take up via an Intellectual Property challenge outside of F1 - in a proper court and be re-imbursed in some way if found to be wronged, keeping the FIA's nose out of it and squeaky clean.
The only problem is, which country'a legal system would try the case fairly? Italy, France, UK.... hmmm.
coetzeeh said:
The fuel temp variance in question in the BMW and Williams would not have made any material differnce in their performance - and LH would not have overtaken them had their fuel temp been 3 deg higher at the point of refueling.
No chance of LH catching either BMW or Williams in question on the day.
But then you come back to the age old question: if there was nothing to gain by their actions, and if, as you say, no material difference would have been made to their performance, why did they do it? Why not run the fuel 2 degs above if it makes no material difference? And are you saying that the existing rules should not be applied?No chance of LH catching either BMW or Williams in question on the day.
Tbh, i see this as a consequence of the FIAs action against McLaren earlier in the year. The FIA handed out a punishment totally out of proportion to the crime. Well, they've made their bed and now they must lie in it. The FIA made it perfectly clear that transgressions will be heavily punished, so now are they going to stand by their previous decisions, or are they going to cherry pick which rules must or must not be obeyed?
I sincerely hope that the FIA suffer the excruciating embarrassment of having to hand the championship to the wrong driver, to the driver who doesn't want it.
Heebeegeetee said:
Tbh, i see this as a consequence of the FIAs action against McLaren earlier in the year. The FIA handed out a punishment totally out of proportion to the crime. Well, they've made their bed and now they must lie in it. The FIA made it perfectly clear that transgressions will be heavily punished, so now are they going to stand by their previous decisions, or are they going to cherry pick which rules must or must not be obeyed?
The theoretical potential outcome of the fuel temp hearing is dramatic and is getting the headlines, although I think we all know what the actual outcome is not likely to be, and the ICA will contrive a form of words that, whilst perhaps disputable, will not be preposterous.The Renault affair is going to be the juicy one. The IP that they received was taken by someone who worked for them, not gifted to them by someone who worked for the other side, the information was shared by at least fifteen engineers, not one engineer and two drivers who collectively had nothing to do with the car's design or operation, and the information was within Renault not for four months prior to exposure, but for thirteen months.
How the FIA can give them anything less than a McLaren-level penalty is hard to see, yet that sort of penalty is likely to drive the constructor out of the sport.
Let's see how they weasel their way out of this one.
Okay, so precedent states that teams using irregular fuels get a slap on the wrist but the drivers get away scot free (Brazil 1995). Let's say that this irreguar fuel shenanigans causes some driver diqualification. Right, so team caught playing nasty then drivers should also be punished. Would Ferrari then have the right to invoke the same kind of treatment for McLaren on the Stepney case? Or is the whole retro-active thing not going to work? Just curious, don't burn me at the stake just yet!
runnersp said:
Okay, so precedent states that teams using irregular fuels get a slap on the wrist but the drivers get away scot free (Brazil 1995). Let's say that this irreguar fuel shenanigans causes some driver diqualification. Right, so team caught playing nasty then drivers should also be punished. Would Ferrari then have the right to invoke the same kind of treatment for McLaren on the Stepney case? Or is the whole retro-active thing not going to work? Just curious, don't burn me at the stake just yet!
The McLaren drivers were given exeption from punishment, if they cooperated with the enquiry, before the FIA hearing. That's why they didn't have any points deduction.flemke said:
Wrt Ferrari reliability in the first couple of races, Ferrari finished 1-2 in the opener in Australia.
You may recall that they won that race using the flexible floor that was banned a few days after the race.
Wrt Ferrari reliability- Ferrari actually had a 1-6 in Australia because Massa's car failed in qualifying. You may recall that they won that race using the flexible floor that was banned a few days after the race.
SeeFive said:
Now then, 3 degrees below the clearly stated allowable minimum temperature for fuel - direct transgression of a rule, there should be a penalty.
I was on the flight back from Sau Paulo with the Williams personnel and they were obviously discussing this in the lounge before take off. My understanding (gained from eavesdropping their conversation so take all this with a pinch of salt) was that there are two ambient temp readings used during the race weekend, one from the track (race control) and one from a lab in Paris(?!?) and there was a disparity between the two. Presumably, Williams and BMW used the more advantageous reading and McLaren, in seeking their 'rule clarification' want to establish which the 'official' temperature reading to be used is.
Happy for any of the above to be corrected by one of the F1 circus
Chris
Heebeegeetee said:
coetzeeh said:
The fuel temp variance in question in the BMW and Williams would not have made any material differnce in their performance - and LH would not have overtaken them had their fuel temp been 3 deg higher at the point of refueling.
No chance of LH catching either BMW or Williams in question on the day.
But then you come back to the age old question: if there was nothing to gain by their actions, and if, as you say, no material difference would have been made to their performance, why did they do it? Why not run the fuel 2 degs above if it makes no material difference? And are you saying that the existing rules should not be applied?No chance of LH catching either BMW or Williams in question on the day.
We know that it was really hot on the race day in Brazil, and I heard a commentator saying that BMW and Williams got caught out by the increase in ambient temp, and had not sufficiently adjusted the fuel temp to remain within the 10 deg range. I for one don't think BMW or Williams deliberately broke the rules regarding fuel temp.
As I mentioned in a subsequent post, I was commenting on the performance on the day - even if BMW and Williams had adjusted their fuel temp to within 10 deg of ambient temp, their performance loss would not have been such that LH would have caught, let alone overtaken them.
I agree with you, rules are rules...
10 Pence Short said:
VladD said:
Anyone know what time an announcement will be made?
As far as I know it's been adjourned to Paris for further submissions.http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=463646
Don't be so over dramatic. If anything harmed the sport's reputation, it was Ferrari insisting on McLaren being punished because their own employee blew thw whistle on their cheating.
If BMW and Williams are excluded because they broke the rules, then so be it. If that happened to alter the World Championship result, so be that, too. It could have happened at any race during the season, it just so happens it was at the last one.
If BMW and Williams are excluded because they broke the rules, then so be it. If that happened to alter the World Championship result, so be that, too. It could have happened at any race during the season, it just so happens it was at the last one.
10 Pence Short said:
flemke said:
Wrt Ferrari reliability in the first couple of races, Ferrari finished 1-2 in the opener in Australia.
You may recall that they won that race using the flexible floor that was banned a few days after the race.
Wrt Ferrari reliability- Ferrari actually had a 1-6 in Australia because Massa's car failed in qualifying. You may recall that they won that race using the flexible floor that was banned a few days after the race.
Before my post I had double-checked to see Massa's finishing position, but I then read from the wrong column.
Duuuuh.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff