The McLaren thing just keeps on rolling?

[Derek Smith]

At last, a tactic I do know about and have some experience of. According to Planet F1, http://www.planet-f1.com, RD was offered a deal by the FIA: resign and we will not proceed.

Offers in such circumstances are easy to define. If someone in authority offers a deal, they are after something. There is no other reason for the offer. In the case of the McCanns, it was tantamount to the police saying 'We haven't enough evidence to charge you.' Such offers are a waste of time except in such circumstances where the suspect is exhausted.

Now the FIA are saying by this offer that they do not want to proceed via legal process. The only unknown is why. The most likely scenario is that they are trying to save face, to come out of the situation with a smug smile and a smuglier, 'We'd like to say more, but the agreement . . . well we can't.'

One would assume there would be no pressure from McLaren racing team for RD to leave but, and it is a massive but, the sponsors and Mercedes would want an end to this fiasco as soon as possible. The FIA probably feel that the pressure from McLaren's paymasters will be too much for RD to resist. Further, the hearing is on Thursday. The lack of time available to RD to decide is another lever.

They saw Ron's reaction to his team's cheers. This is a man who is under great pressure. So what do the FIA do, put a bit more on him. Nice one, chaps.

The FIA are being very clever here. Who will rid us of this turbulent manager? Mercedes will.

It's a pity the FIA can't bring this degree of application to their real function.

Ron is, or at least appears to be, a man of honour. He's now got to balance his needs with those of the team he undoubtably loves.

I am really upset by this shambolic process. The FIA will not come out of this with any credibility left whatsoever. In answer to the question: Are you fully independant? they can only answer: Wait while we ask Ferrari.

[andyps]

Derek Smith said:

I am really upset by this shambolic process. The FIA will not come out of this with any credibility left whatsoever. In answer to the question: Are you fully independant? they can only answer: Wait while we ask Ferrari.

[Stuismyname]

I can't see Ron Dennis leaving, Derek. If the FIA have offered him that, then you might envisage it would make Ron all the more determined to see it through - as you point out, it suggests the FIA have less than a watertight case against McLaren.

Further, has anyone suggested Ron has personally participated or been party to any of the alleged wrongdoings? He may be vicariously responsible for his team, but I think there's a world of difference.

I can't see any of McLaren's paymasters forcing Ron out before he choses to retire. He's too good, and Mercedes' / Santander's etc investment will be devalued far more by rapidly sliding into mid-field obscurity and being known as the corporations that ruined McLaren.

Maybe it's because I'm morally deficient, but this fracas won't leave a bad taste in my mouth. It probably won't stop me watching F1, unless McL get thrown out. I can't see there's anything happened here, the like of which hasn't been done before in one form or another.

The only party that can bring F1 into disrepute from here on in, is the FIA. I just want to see a straight fight for the title - heaven forbid, some sport

[flemke]

jamieboy said:

flemke said:

What we have seen in during the Todt era has included:
...
...
- brake ducts and wheel covers - both of which move - designed as aerodynamic devices, but not considered to be "moving aerodynamic devices",

Disappointing that this comes up time and time again. The wheel covers and brake ducts are covered under a different set of rules than the bodywork, and it is only the bodywork rules which state that all parts must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car. The brake ducts, in fact, are explicitly excluded from that rule.

The brake ducts are excluded, but that exclusion was only written in after Ferrari had used the ducts for some time.
There was a piece about this in Autosport last autumn.

[[k]arl]

The plot deepens.

It seems that the contents of the email that have been reported are fake. My reading of the report is not that emails between drivers constitutes the 'new evidence', but that the reported contents of the message(s) are.

IMHO, the deal offered to RD is proof, if it were needed, that this whole mess is a vendetta against RD personally. If it were all about 'fair play', as claimed, the FIA would be more interested in dealing severely with Coughlan, Stepney, de la Rosa and Alonso - the actual perpetrators who (allegedly) have dealt with or partaken of the tainted information. I fail to see what forcing out someone only vicariously involved would achieve in terms of punishment, deterrence or suchlike. For what it's worth, RD has my support in this matter; I hope he continues the fight and shows all involved what he is made of.

This is not, I accept, the thread for it (so I will debate it no further here) but I must go slightly OT for a moment to disagree with the comment above about the Ferrari rim shields. As their design evolves (especially with the recent addition of gurney tabs to the fronts) they appear to me to now have an obvious function of 'affecting the aerodynamic performance' of the car, thereby bringing them within the bodywork rules in the same manner as the Renault harmonic damper. As for the rears, surely they also contravene the wheel construction rules? I don't doubt they have been cleared by scrutineering, but IMHO they should not be allowed for the above reasons, and also safety - surely the FIA must be concerned about potential cut wheels on the gurney tabs or the rims themselves breaking loose, or being thrown off at speed in an accident? Frisbee of death anyone

[k]

[flemke]

Ron is a much bigger man than Mosley will ever be. He won't be driven out by that thug.

Ron and Mercedes were at the core of the GPMA, which sought to take F1 away from FIA/FOM control. We shouldn't be surprised that Mosley and Ferrari are trying to destroy him and the organisation that he has built.

As for commercial pressures from McLaren's sponsors, I think you will find that the FIA's and Ferrari's outrageous behaviour will have made the sponsors even more supportive than they had been. The team is the class of the field this year, and they have both the reigning champion and the most exciting - and marketable - rookie of all time.
The grown-ups who run most of these companies don't take kindly to someone's being bullied and stitched up by scumbags.

[Derek Smith]

Thanks for the reassurance, gents. I feel better after reading your posts.

With regards to these 'offers' of the easy out, there was a saying in the Job: If you've got enough evidence you don't need to; if you haven't got enough evidence, don't bother.

[jamieboy]

flemke said:

The brake ducts are excluded, but that exclusion was only written in after Ferrari had used the ducts for some time.
There was a piece about this in Autosport last autumn.

I didn't see the article. Was the exclusion put in place simply to clarify that they were not covered by the bodywork regs, or to change their status from being covered to not being covered by the bodywork regs?

[flemke]

jamieboy said:

flemke said:

The brake ducts are excluded, but that exclusion was only written in after Ferrari had used the ducts for some time.
There was a piece about this in Autosport last autumn.

I didn't see the article. Was the exclusion put in place simply to clarify that they were not covered by the bodywork regs, or to change their status from being covered to not being covered by the bodywork regs?

I had forgotten about (having been only dimly aware of) the brake ducts issue until this small comment, which was in the context of a discussion of the wheel covers. The author (wasn't Hughes, may have been Anderson) wrote something like, "There is dispute about the wheel covers, but why is no attention paid to the front brake ducts, which are clearly in contravention of the rules?", followed by an explanation of how they contravened.
As I say, this was last year. I believe that the exclusion to which you referred became effective at the start of this year.

[classiccooper]

Now it turns out the Alonso e-mail may have been faked!!!!!!

[jamieboy]

flemke said:

I had forgotten about (having been only dimly aware of) the brake ducts issue until this small comment, which was in the context of a discussion of the wheel covers. The author (wasn't Hughes, may have been Anderson) wrote something like, "There is dispute about the wheel covers, but why is no attention paid to the front brake ducts, which are clearly in contravention of the rules?", followed by an explanation of how they contravened.
As I say, this was last year. I believe that the exclusion to which you referred became effective at the start of this year.

I read it in the rules for 2006, updated 15/12/2005.

Although this is on the FIA website, so it was presumably altered and then back-dated in another blatant example of favouritism etc. etc. etc.

[flemke]

jamieboy said:

flemke said:

I had forgotten about (having been only dimly aware of) the brake ducts issue until this small comment, which was in the context of a discussion of the wheel covers. The author (wasn't Hughes, may have been Anderson) wrote something like, "There is dispute about the wheel covers, but why is no attention paid to the front brake ducts, which are clearly in contravention of the rules?", followed by an explanation of how they contravened.
As I say, this was last year. I believe that the exclusion to which you referred became effective at the start of this year.

I read it in the rules for 2006, updated 15/12/2005.

Although this is on the FIA website, so it was presumably altered and then back-dated in another blatant example of favouritism etc. etc. etc.

Now you're making me look for that back issue of Autosport, which I probably don't have anyhow!

[davidd]

Whoa there, FIA offered RD a deal, are you having a laugh?

Thats rubbish, I'll put money on it.

D

[Derek Smith]

davidd said:

Whoa there, FIA offered RD a deal, are you having a laugh?

Thats rubbish, I'll put money on it.

D

The Independant insists that such a rumour abounds. http://sport.independent.co.uk/motor_racing/articl...

Further, the journo who broke the email story did not lie. He merely: ". . . made a free interpretation of what might have been said in the email."

I accept that the subtle difference between lie and 'free interpretation' is lost on me, but the journo seems to have it clear in his head.

[davidd]

[quote=Derek SmithThe Independant insists that such a rumour abounds. http://sport.independent.co.uk/motor_racing/articl...

Further, the journo who broke the email story did not lie. He merely: ". . . made a free interpretation of what might have been said in the email."

I accept that the subtle difference between lie and 'free interpretation' is lost on me, but the journo seems to have it clear in his head.

[/quote]

If we take the made up emails as a starting point, then that shows us that one source can start a rumour that spreads everywhere, I think the Ron deal thing is the same. These people all want a story and will take what they can get and make up everything else.

Free interpretation of the email, thats just comical, so I'm not telling a lie, just making something up..... even he said it was hypothetical..

This is the problem with the whole McLaren Ferrari thing, the truth is buried under a ton of bad reporting. We will however at some point find out what happened...


D

[[k]arl]

Here's a fantastic little snippet from a story on F1 Live which talks about potential 'out-of-court' settlements involving McLaren, Ferrari and the FIA, and the fact that various top people in those organizations were having meetings with each other over the race weekend.

"In the Spanish newspaper Marca, meanwhile, it is reported that negotiations also took place at Monza between Dennis and Renault's boss, Briatore. Renault has reportedly been backing Ferrari's campaign for a sanction against McLaren, but Marca claims that Dennis is in possession of knowledge that could "cause the immediate exclusion from the championship of the French team."



[k]

Edited by [k]arl on Monday 10th September 14:02

[classiccooper]

It's just not funny any more, since leaving the sport I have managed to maintain a keen interest, but if this dosen't all stop soon I can see my interest starting to waiver.

What's the point in going racing if the dicks at the FIA can't be consistent of fair.

[Adrian W]

Shouldnt Maclaren be exluded for using a fast driver, surely this is against the rules

[stew-S160]

Adrian W said:

Shouldnt Maclaren be exluded for using a fast driver, surely this is against the rules

and the fastest, more reliable car. vodafone sponsorship. etc etc.

[Graham]

IMHO..


There is a definite case of bringing F1 into disrepute and the people responsible or it should be brought to book...

Trouble is how do the FIA prosecute themselves ?