Why was crashgate such a big deal?

[DOCG]

All they did was intentionally bring out a safety car to benefit the other drivers strategy, who had by far the fastest car in the field.

They were charged with "interfering with the outcome of the 2008 Singapore race" Isn't every team interfering with the outcome of a race when they are trying to win it?

[Muzzer79]

Think about it for a second.

In order to bring out the safety car, one has to deliberately crash. Not just a small one, one that warrants a safety car.

Renault told their driver to deliberately put himself and others (Marshalls) in harm's way in order to allow the other car to win.

This isn't tactics, it's cheating and dangerous cheating at that.

Edit - Alonso didn't have "by far the fastest car in the field" either. Without the cheating, he wouldn't have won the race.

[DOCG]

Muzzer79 said:

Think about it for a second.

In order to bring out the safety car, one has to deliberately crash. Not just a small one, one that warrants a safety car.

Renault told their driver to deliberately put himself and others (Marshalls) in harm's way in order to allow the other car to win.

This isn't tactics, it's cheating and dangerous cheating at that.

Edit - Alonso didn't have "by far the fastest car in the field" either. Without the cheating, he wouldn't have won the race.

F1 was very safe at that time, I watched the race yesterday and Martin Brundle said that the crash looked far worse than it actually was. I just don't see that there was much danger to anyone.


Alonso was the fastest in all practice sessions but the car failed in qualifying.

I just see it as a strategic tactic rather than cheating, something can only be cheating if they do something contrary to the rules, but there were no rules against this, hence the very vague charge of "interfering with the outcome".

[sgtBerbatov]

I heard it was the race that made Dan Ticktum want to become a racing driver. He just gets annoyed when the opponent doesn't crash in front of him, so he does it himself.

There's the safety element to it, while F1 has never been safer so the driver could walk away, what if debris caused injury to a marshall or spectator? Further more, what if debris caused a puncture for an opponent which caused them to crash in a faster part of a street circuit?

There's the actual thing of sportsmanship as well, which businesses pretending to still have a modicum of sporting relativity cling on to. It just wasn't cricket.

[Evanivitch]

DOCG said:

F1 was very safe at that time, I watched the race yesterday and Martin Brundle said that the crash looked far worse than it actually was. I just don't see that there was much danger to anyone.

If F1 cars are so safe, why do we even have a safety car?

Because it's nothing to do with the safety of the cars. It's because of the safety of the Marshalls and recovery team.

[DOCG]

sgtBerbatov said:

I heard it was the race that made Dan Ticktum want to become a racing driver. He just gets annoyed when the opponent doesn't crash in front of him, so he does it himself.

There's the safety element to it, while F1 has never been safer so the driver could walk away, what if debris caused injury to a marshall or spectator? Further more, what if debris caused a puncture for an opponent which caused them to crash in a faster part of a street circuit?

There's the actual thing of sportsmanship as well, which businesses pretending to still have a modicum of sporting relativity cling on to. It just wasn't cricket.

For me the whole safety aspect just seemed like the media trying to make a bigger story out of it. Having a headline of "team forced a driver to intentionally crash and endanger his and spectators lives" will sell a lot more papers than "team deliberately brought out the safety car to win a race". In reality crashes like that happen very frequently in F1 and especially on street circuits. It wasn't even the most dangerous accident of the race (the accident of Sutil was far far more dangerous to marshals.

[DOCG]

Evanivitch said:

If F1 cars are so safe, why do we even have a safety car?

Because it's nothing to do with the safety of the cars. It's because of the safety of the Marshalls and recovery team.

I'm talking about the safety of both.

[oyster]

DOCG said:

Muzzer79 said:

Think about it for a second.

In order to bring out the safety car, one has to deliberately crash. Not just a small one, one that warrants a safety car.

Renault told their driver to deliberately put himself and others (Marshalls) in harm's way in order to allow the other car to win.

This isn't tactics, it's cheating and dangerous cheating at that.

Edit - Alonso didn't have "by far the fastest car in the field" either. Without the cheating, he wouldn't have won the race.

F1 was very safe at that time, I watched the race yesterday and Martin Brundle said that the crash looked far worse than it actually was. I just don't see that there was much danger to anyone.


Alonso was the fastest in all practice sessions but the car failed in qualifying.

I just see it as a strategic tactic rather than cheating, something can only be cheating if they do something contrary to the rules, but there were no rules against this, hence the very vague charge of "interfering with the outcome".

I'm guessing you think Nancy Kerrigan was beaten fair and square too?

After all, nothing in the rules against what happened to her.

[kambites]

Was intentionally crashing actually against the rules? It's one of those things where common sense dictates you shouldn't do, but I can quite imaging that it wasn't explicitly written into the rules.

I'm not trying to argue that what Renault did was in any way reasonable, I'm just interested. Is it even explicitly against the rules now?

[Nampahc Niloc]

Is this a troll?

There’s no such thing as a “safe” crash. You can’t control the outcome. There are any number of possible scenarios that could have lead to death of injury. Before anyone says, “you take that risk when you go racing”, that may be so, but you don’t deliberately increase the risk.

[DanielSan]

kambites said:

Was intentionally crashing actually against the rules? It's one of those things where common sense dictates you shouldn't do, but I can quite imaging that it wasn't explicitly written into the rules.

I'm not trying to argue that what Renault did was in any way reasonable, I'm just interested. Is it even explicitly against the rules now?

It can't be against the rules, Grosjean does it pretty much every week. There's no way he can't crash that much and it not be in purpose surely?

[Sandpit Steve]

At the risk of feeding the troll:

1. Physical danger to the driver, other drivers, marshals and spectators.
2. Gaining an unfair advantage for the team.
3. Bringing the sport into disrepute.

[DOCG]

oyster said:

I'm guessing you think Nancy Kerrigan was beaten fair and square too?

After all, nothing in the rules against what happened to her.

No Harding did not violate sporting regulations, she violated federal law which clearly takes precedent. You have a very interesting thought process. I don't see any similarities to crashgate other than neither violating sporting regulations.

Technically speaking Kerrigan wasn't beaten as she didn't take part.

[DOCG]

Sandpit Steve said:

At the risk of feeding the troll:

1. Physical danger to the driver, other drivers, marshals and spectators.
2. Gaining an unfair advantage for the team.
3. Bringing the sport into disrepute.

Of these three the only one that I agree with is third, you don't want to have a situation in which fans are sceptical of anything that happens in the sport.

[WickerBill]

DOCG said:

Sandpit Steve said:

At the risk of feeding the troll:

1. Physical danger to the driver, other drivers, marshals and spectators.
2. Gaining an unfair advantage for the team.
3. Bringing the sport into disrepute.

Of these three the only one that I agree with is third, you don't want to have a situation in which fans are sceptical of anything that happens in the sport.

2. so if it wasnt gaining an unfair advantage, why do it?
1. of course theres a danger, what if a wheel came off or car part hit another drivers helmet. massa, wilson etc etc.

your views are usually 'interesting' this thread takes the biscuit though

[Sandpit Steve]

DOCG said:

Of these three the only one that I agree with is third, you don't want to have a situation in which fans are sceptical of anything that happens in the sport.

Number 1 is by far the most Important.

Despite having safer cars and tracks than we have ever had, there are still numerous deaths in motorsport every year. Crash dynamics are unpredictable, ask Ayrton Senna.

We remembered one such death only last weekend. There have been I think five deaths at F1 meetings in the past decade, and there are a handful more every year just in the U.K. at various motorsport events.

[rdjohn]

I think if you look at both Crashgate and Spygate you will see the hand of Max Moseley realising certain satisfaction for getting one over on Flavio Briatore and Ron Dennis. It was personal - the FIA being his fiefdom.

Spygate was a daft outcome. As Racing Point have demonstrated with their copy of last year’s Mercedes, at best, you can close the gap to the leader. In 2007 McLaren were the dominant team, why would they really set out to copy ideas from an inferior car?

Both teams had rogue operators within - end of.

Crashgate did interfere in the true outcome of the race, so banning Briatore and Symonds was a fairer outcome. The consequence of Renault abandoning their team was an unfortunate outcome, that has yet to come full circle.

[DOCG]

WickerBill said:

2. so if it wasnt gaining an unfair advantage, why do it?
1. of course theres a danger, what if a wheel came off or car part hit another drivers helmet. massa, wilson etc etc.

your views are usually 'interesting' this thread takes the biscuit though

2. It depends whether or not you consider the advantage to be unfair, from what I can tell it was within the sporting regulations, perhaps a loophole.

1. From what I can see that type of accident is quite common in F1, but injuries (both to drivers and marshals) are very very rare. Maybe I am taking the safety for granted.

[DOCG]

rdjohn said:

I think if you look at both Crashgate and Spygate you will see the hand of Max Moseley realising certain satisfaction for getting one over on Flavio Briatore and Ron Dennis. It was personal - the FIA being his fiefdom.

Spygate was a daft outcome. As Racing Point have demonstrated with their copy of last year’s Mercedes, at best, you can close the gap to the leader. In 2007 McLaren were the dominant team, why would they really set out to copy ideas from an inferior car?

Both teams had rogue operators within - end of.

Crashgate did interfere in the true outcome of the race, so banning Briatore and Symonds was a fairer outcome. The consequence of Renault abandoning their team was an unfortunate outcome, that has yet to come full circle.

I disagree about spygate, even if the McLaren was better overall it would be useful to see where the Ferrari had advantages and what they were doing differently.

[Europa1]

I am amazed anyone feels the need to ask the question.