Mclaren admit to being at fault.
Discussion
Just finished reading the FIA's 21 page report about 'good' vs 'bad' spying & seen Ferrari's press release too. Two things strike me:
- McLaren seem to have used considerably less info from Ferrari's confidential stuff than I would if I were an F1 team & had the full designs of a competitors car. I can't see this being any more than a normal amount of 'bad' spying within F1 but obviously there isn't any similar info about another team to compare this to.
- I'd love to see how well any other team on the grid stands up to this kind of scrutiny because I'd be prepared to bet it wouldn't be better & would probably fare a lot worse.
Riverside said:
Just finished reading the FIA's 21 page report about 'good' vs 'bad' spying & seen Ferrari's press release too. Two things strike me:
Such as the number of Adrian Newey/McLaren ideas that Nicholas Tombazis took with him from McLaren to Ferrari in 2006 - the difference being that Ferrari paid him to bring those ideas to them, whereas Stepney gave his away for free?- McLaren seem to have used considerably less info from Ferrari's confidential stuff than I would if I were an F1 team & had the full designs of a competitors car. I can't see this being any more than a normal amount of 'bad' spying within F1 but obviously there isn't any similar info about another team to compare this to.
- I'd love to see how well any other team on the grid stands up to this kind of scrutiny because I'd be prepared to bet it wouldn't be better & would probably fare a lot worse.
And then we have what Stepney hinted at - the amount of McLaren IP that he was given by Coughlan. Will that information ever be revealed (or be definitively repudiated), or will Nigel be "persuaded" to change his mind?
flemke said:
And then we have what Stepney hinted at - the amount of McLaren IP that he was given by Coughlan. Will that information ever be revealed (or be definitively repudiated), or will Nigel be "persuaded" to change his mind?
The answer to that may depend upon the relationship between the vlaue Nigel places on his freedoms relative to the level of accuracy he wishes to include in "Red Mist". Alternatively, a change at the top of the FIA to someone less disposed to very selective listening as regards to what is said about and by the red team may bring about some revelation.flemke said:
Such as the number of Adrian Newey/McLaren ideas that Nicholas Tombazis took with him from McLaren to Ferrari in 2006 - the difference being that Ferrari paid him to bring those ideas to them, whereas Stepney gave his away for free?
Well no, not really, that would be 'good' spying 
If you take on an employee from another team any innapropriately gained knowledge prior to their joining can immediately be attibuted as having been supplied from the mind of that employee. For example any subsequent discovery of confidential McLaren info being found on the 2008 Renault cars will now be able to be explained as having been supplied by Alonso.
McLaren just need to find themselves an ex-Ferrari bod to employ so they can re-tell McLaren to try using CO2 and a mechanical pre-selector for brake bias, problem solved
Maybe we need to back up a little bit and acknowledge the new information, or at least discuss the particulars of the report. We're jumping over the fact that information was not limited to just a couple of rogue employees and a contracted test driver, and are immediately trying to defend or explain away what happened as insignificant or normal relative to others behavior. Just because others might have done it and haven't been caught is not an excuse that Mclaren should use, and I don't think we should try to divert attention away from the matter by blaming other teams. In fact, I would hope that Mclaren dont't want to be the most 'honorable amongst thieves', but the most honorable amongst all sportsmen.
Or we can posit and guess about what other teams do, have done, and will do that is worse than Mclaren, all in effort to make them shine a little brighter in contrast.
Or we can posit and guess about what other teams do, have done, and will do that is worse than Mclaren, all in effort to make them shine a little brighter in contrast.
35secToNuvolari said:
we We're we we
Perhaps if posters want to reflect on things they could try picturing how fellow posters would react if it were another team in McLaren's situation?I think McLaren have been foolish, but not for the obvious reason. I think the way the FIA have allowed Ferrari to make them look like a sock puppet is pathetic tbh.
35secToNuvolari said:
Maybe we need to back up a little bit and acknowledge the new information, or at least discuss the particulars of the report. We're jumping over the fact that information was not limited to just a couple of rogue employees and a contracted test driver, and are immediately trying to defend or explain away what happened as insignificant or normal relative to others behavior. Just because others might have done it and haven't been caught is not an excuse that Mclaren should use, and I don't think we should try to divert attention away from the matter by blaming other teams. In fact, I would hope that Mclaren dont't want to be the most 'honorable amongst thieves', but the most honorable amongst all sportsmen.
Or we can posit and guess about what other teams do, have done, and will do that is worse than Mclaren, all in effort to make them shine a little brighter in contrast.
One could reply to your highlighted (by me) assertion with the reply that, if it does not say within the rules that one team is not allowed to use another's team's ideas, then using them is allowed. If it is allowed and, indeed, is standard operating procedure for the teams, then there is nothing wrong with doing so. It so depends on context: in tennis you're not allowed to strike your opponent, although you are expected to do so in boxing.Or we can posit and guess about what other teams do, have done, and will do that is worse than Mclaren, all in effort to make them shine a little brighter in contrast.
We must bear in mind that it was at least something of a unilateral extension of its authority for the FIA to get involved in this at all (although not as outrageous as the FIA's interfering in the McLaren intra-team problem in Hungary, which interference was truly indefensible).
Apart from that philosophical point - which I accept can be rebutted as well as be asserted, there are the practical facts.
If you have not already had the chance to do so, I would strongly recommend that you and any other interested party read the full FIA "technical letter" published today:
http://www.fia.com/public/mclaren.pdf
Having heard about the headlines relating to McLaren's apologising, their admission that it might now appear that there was a thought to incorporate Ferrari IP into MP4-23A, and their proposal to cease any development during '08 of certain critical areas of the car, as a McLaren supporter I looked forward to reading the FIA report with utter dread.
It turns out that my fears were unnecessary.
There are three areas covered in the report (which the FIA filtered out of 14 areas which Ferrari had requested, kitchen-sink fashion, that the FIA scrutinise) as being areas of possible "infection".
One was the wheelbase. I see this as a complete non-starter, for the simple reason that everybody knew that Ferrari's wheelbase this year was quite long and different from the others' - which made sense insofar as Ferrari began the season with a huge informational advantage by virtue of having known much more about the '05 Bridgestones than anyone else did.
Other teams' cars therefore were designed in the dark. Once Ferrari shone the light on the potentiality of a longer wheelbase, it was a safe bet that other cars for '08 would have been designed with the Ferrari advantage in mind.
Much is made in the report of how McLaren "might" have known the Ferrari wheelbase with a degree of precision that was not possible to attain by accepted means of intelligence, such as photos. That may or may not be true, but no one is going to mimic someone else's wheelbase anyway. Rather, they look at the basics of a different concept and then see how they might apply that concept to the particulars of their own car. If McLaren had opted this year for a long wheelbase, it would have been inspired by what they could already see from photos, based on what they had learned by their actual '07 experience with the tyres, and would have been fine-tuned in simulations. The precise length of Ferrari's wheelbase was inconsequential to them.
The FIA letter goes into two other areas: the special tyre gas and the means of adjusting brake balance.
There is too much redaction in the public version of the letter to make sense of the detail (assuming that one has the technical capability to do so, which I do not). What is clear from the FIA text, however, is that the FIA continue to lack concrete proof that what McLaren either used or considered using was as a direct result of illicit Ferrari IP. There is, however, concrete evidence that Coughlan was involved in discussions that related to these two areas, so it seems more likely than it did seem before that he may have influenced certain things.
My take on it all is:
Let us assume that McLaren really did try to take up Ferrari's idea to use CO2 in tyres, and also their idea for adjusting brake balance. Guilty as charged.
Now that the FIA have conducted their investigation, however, these are the only points on which McLaren have - under this assumption of complete guiltiness - been shown to have used illicit material.
Now if we go back to the second FIA verdict, the basis of that were massive assumptions made about the myriad ways in which McLarn could have used this or might have used that. The FIA's OTT punishments of McLaren were based on their tendentious assumption that such a worst-case possibility was the reality.
Now we know that the real case was nowhere near the worst case.
Separate from that is a comparison between the latest, most complete description of events in the McLaren/Ferrari thing and the FIA's own explanation of what happened in the recent Renault affair.
Renault admitted to having confidential McLaren IP about four of the car's main systems. Renault studied these systems and - according to them - after some analysis decided not to employ any of them on their car. We await the Renault transcripts to see whether any of these systems were experimented with, or how much effort was put into analysing them.
From what I read in the FIA letter, McLaren did not race with anything that might have been suggested by Coughlan. Therefore McLaren's offence, of checking out what the oppositon was doing but not employing it, and Renault's seem quite similar. Not so the penalties.
Also, there remains no evidence anywhere (that I have seen) that anyone else at McLaren but Coughlan knew about the dossier. The FIA letter focuses only on what information was passed via e-mails and texts between NS and MC.
One has to wonder: if there had not been the bright red flag of the 780-page dossier, which got all the sensationalist headlines but actually turned out to be a damp squib, and instead we had only heard about texts and e-mails, would anyone think that this was a big deal? A $100,000,000, loss of Constructors' Championship, kind of deal? I doubt it.
mhedleyrob said:
If the only way McLaren could hold a candle to Ferrari was to 'use' confidential information then things do not bode well for next season.
As an F1 fan for 25+ years the last thing I want is a return to the single manufacturer romp.
But then honesty must prevail.
2008 is not likely to suffer from a lack of competition.As an F1 fan for 25+ years the last thing I want is a return to the single manufacturer romp.
But then honesty must prevail.
The single manufacturer romp of recent years was caused by the rare confluence of an unusually effective driver, a superb group of technical leaders, and a special relationship with the regulator.
The absence of two of those three factors will be sufficient to bring the romper down to earth.
flemke said:
if there had not been the bright red flag of the 780-page dossier, which got all the sensationalist headlines but actually turned out to be a damp squib, and instead we had only heard about texts and e-mails, would anyone think that this was a big deal? A $100,000,000, loss of Constructors' Championship, kind of deal? I doubt it.
...and there's the rub. In some ways, the headlines that this generated obliged the governing body to investigate.I have no particular issues with McLaren's punishment but have a huge issue with the fact that this precedent appears not to have been considered in Renault's case.
rubystone said:
flemke said:
if there had not been the bright red flag of the 780-page dossier, which got all the sensationalist headlines but actually turned out to be a damp squib, and instead we had only heard about texts and e-mails, would anyone think that this was a big deal? A $100,000,000, loss of Constructors' Championship, kind of deal? I doubt it.
...and there's the rub. In some ways, the headlines that this generated obliged the governing body to investigate.I have no particular issues with McLaren's punishment but have a huge issue with the fact that this precedent appears not to have been considered in Renault's case.
flemke said:
rubystone said:
flemke said:
if there had not been the bright red flag of the 780-page dossier, which got all the sensationalist headlines but actually turned out to be a damp squib, and instead we had only heard about texts and e-mails, would anyone think that this was a big deal? A $100,000,000, loss of Constructors' Championship, kind of deal? I doubt it.
...and there's the rub. In some ways, the headlines that this generated obliged the governing body to investigate.I have no particular issues with McLaren's punishment but have a huge issue with the fact that this precedent appears not to have been considered in Renault's case.
PJS917 said:
flemke said:
rubystone said:
flemke said:
if there had not been the bright red flag of the 780-page dossier, which got all the sensationalist headlines but actually turned out to be a damp squib, and instead we had only heard about texts and e-mails, would anyone think that this was a big deal? A $100,000,000, loss of Constructors' Championship, kind of deal? I doubt it.
...and there's the rub. In some ways, the headlines that this generated obliged the governing body to investigate.I have no particular issues with McLaren's punishment but have a huge issue with the fact that this precedent appears not to have been considered in Renault's case.
As more information comes to light, it makes it easier to understand a review of the history of this sorry tale. Essentially McLaren were given access to information which they would have known was "naughty", but given the competitiveness of the 2 teams (and the enmity) it is easy to understand that in the boiler room of early/mid season, they took more than a passing interest in it. As such, RD's claims early on that everyone refused to look at the information and suggested it be returned, looks fairly shredded. I am more than prepared to believe that he personally thought that this was a completely truthful statement at the time he made it, to the best of his knowledge. As McLaren said, it must be borne in mind the point of the season when these events were unfolding, and the extremely short timescales in which they were expected to happen.
However, looking back at what now appear to be presented as fact, some parties come out of this looking pretty bad.
Some parties within McLaren covered up their involvement such that it compromised the team and its owner very badly. The assertion that McLaren's current ability to generate funding is "impossible" is pretty credible. I believe that RD behaved as honourably as the information available to him, and the pressure brought to bear by the FIA and Ferrari, allowed him.
Fernando Alonso comes out very poorly indeed. He has managed to present himself as a petty minded schoolchild, petulantly trying to take his ball away and puncture everyone elses when they didn't want to play his game - which was to become World Champion, preferably in the absence of any competition. His posturing, language, petulance and apparent subsequent insistence on being unchallenged #1 within Renault suggests he is insecure about meaningful competition.
Evidence suggests that Ferrari had a reasonable right to pursue the matter to its conclusion. They felt that their IP was being used and were not happy with a blanket "trust us it's not" statement, and that would seem to be justified. However, their ability to strong-arm the FIA into action, muscle their way into all legal proceedings even when there is no good case for their representation, and most of all their holier than thou attitude towards appropriation of IP, do nothing but tarnish their image.
I can now accept that Mosley's desire to pursue and punish McLaren had some merit. However, the facts of the Renault/McLaren case, which appear in all events to be identical to the McLaren/Ferrari one, and the discrepancy in punishment meted out by the FIA, suggests that the greatest sin that can be committed in F1 is to have Max *believe* that you have done wrong.
At the time of the punishment, there was no proof against McLaren, just Max believing that there was more to it. That there was is immaterial to this argument. I believe that RD gave statements to the FIA that he truly believed based on the information available to him at the time. Max didn't believe this and handed out the biggest punishment ever seen in F1. Shortly afterwards, you have Renault blithely admitting to the same actions that Max *believed* McLaren had done. And yet zero punishment.
The FIA's willingness to be manipulated by Ferrari, and their complete flexibility in meting out punishment, to my mind leaves them with the least credit of all. If Max thought there was more to come out than had been resolved at a given time, then decisions, punishment and declarations of guilt should have been postponed until all events had unfolded.
However, looking back at what now appear to be presented as fact, some parties come out of this looking pretty bad.
Some parties within McLaren covered up their involvement such that it compromised the team and its owner very badly. The assertion that McLaren's current ability to generate funding is "impossible" is pretty credible. I believe that RD behaved as honourably as the information available to him, and the pressure brought to bear by the FIA and Ferrari, allowed him.
Fernando Alonso comes out very poorly indeed. He has managed to present himself as a petty minded schoolchild, petulantly trying to take his ball away and puncture everyone elses when they didn't want to play his game - which was to become World Champion, preferably in the absence of any competition. His posturing, language, petulance and apparent subsequent insistence on being unchallenged #1 within Renault suggests he is insecure about meaningful competition.
Evidence suggests that Ferrari had a reasonable right to pursue the matter to its conclusion. They felt that their IP was being used and were not happy with a blanket "trust us it's not" statement, and that would seem to be justified. However, their ability to strong-arm the FIA into action, muscle their way into all legal proceedings even when there is no good case for their representation, and most of all their holier than thou attitude towards appropriation of IP, do nothing but tarnish their image.
I can now accept that Mosley's desire to pursue and punish McLaren had some merit. However, the facts of the Renault/McLaren case, which appear in all events to be identical to the McLaren/Ferrari one, and the discrepancy in punishment meted out by the FIA, suggests that the greatest sin that can be committed in F1 is to have Max *believe* that you have done wrong.
At the time of the punishment, there was no proof against McLaren, just Max believing that there was more to it. That there was is immaterial to this argument. I believe that RD gave statements to the FIA that he truly believed based on the information available to him at the time. Max didn't believe this and handed out the biggest punishment ever seen in F1. Shortly afterwards, you have Renault blithely admitting to the same actions that Max *believed* McLaren had done. And yet zero punishment.
The FIA's willingness to be manipulated by Ferrari, and their complete flexibility in meting out punishment, to my mind leaves them with the least credit of all. If Max thought there was more to come out than had been resolved at a given time, then decisions, punishment and declarations of guilt should have been postponed until all events had unfolded.
PJS917 said:
flemke said:
rubystone said:
flemke said:
if there had not been the bright red flag of the 780-page dossier, which got all the sensationalist headlines but actually turned out to be a damp squib, and instead we had only heard about texts and e-mails, would anyone think that this was a big deal? A $100,000,000, loss of Constructors' Championship, kind of deal? I doubt it.
...and there's the rub. In some ways, the headlines that this generated obliged the governing body to investigate.I have no particular issues with McLaren's punishment but have a huge issue with the fact that this precedent appears not to have been considered in Renault's case.
another 3 points said:
Does this point towards a Negative points start for McL next season ?
No. McLaren have agreed that in '08 they will not develop certain systems during the season (including gearshift and fuel filler, even though neither was mentioned at all in FIA summary of findings), they have written letter of apology (not clear how much is substance and how much was the price of freedom), and the FIA will leave it at that.A couple of things stand out. When a Senior McLaren Engineer was questioning the accuracy of a dimension of the Ferrari car, his first instinct was to ask "did it come from photos or our mole?".
Regardless of what he was asking, the fact that he immediately wondered whether it had come from 'our mole' must surely ring an alarm bell with even McLaren's most ardent supporters.
Disappointing also that McLaren's own 'thorough investigation' showed that no info had been passed to other members of the team, when it seems that a simple trawl through an email chain proves otherwise.
I'm aware that some PHers will take this post apart, misdirecting us into a forensic discussion over the precise meanings in law of words like 'see', 'know', 'use', 'information' etc., and that others will say I'm a hysterical Ferrari fanboy, and that's fair enough.
I'm happy that this seems to be an end to the whole affair, and that it looks like no additional penalties will be carried forward to the '08 season.
Regardless of what he was asking, the fact that he immediately wondered whether it had come from 'our mole' must surely ring an alarm bell with even McLaren's most ardent supporters.
Disappointing also that McLaren's own 'thorough investigation' showed that no info had been passed to other members of the team, when it seems that a simple trawl through an email chain proves otherwise.
I'm aware that some PHers will take this post apart, misdirecting us into a forensic discussion over the precise meanings in law of words like 'see', 'know', 'use', 'information' etc., and that others will say I'm a hysterical Ferrari fanboy, and that's fair enough.
I'm happy that this seems to be an end to the whole affair, and that it looks like no additional penalties will be carried forward to the '08 season.
I'm reading it slightly differently. Aren't McLaren doing all they can just to bring a conclusion to it? The FIA have messed around and even now are up in the air about allowing McLaren in next season.
Surely all this "we're really sorry" is just to allow McLaren to concentrate on the 08 car without fear of it being disallowed a few weeks before the new season?
Fair play to them, they have to try something.
Surely all this "we're really sorry" is just to allow McLaren to concentrate on the 08 car without fear of it being disallowed a few weeks before the new season?
Fair play to them, they have to try something.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff