What if 'McLaren' are found innocent in a proper court?

[zaktoo]

Ignoring all the other one-eyed rubbish being spouted by the pro-McLaren brigade (or more accurately, the Ferrari-is-the-devil-incarnate brigade), in my opinion being in possession of a 700+ page technical document of Ferrari's without having disclosed this fact immediately should be enough to warrant the 100m fine. Quite why McLaren were let off for the initial offence escapes me. No matter what, the documents from Ferrari should have been disclosed to the authorities immediately and not even looked at.

[air cooled]

If we accept that the Ferrari floor was "cheating" then why are we not also talking about the Renault mass damper being cheating ?

Both components passed scrutineering by stewards at GP meetings.
Both components were deemed outside of the regulations after others had eith started to use them or stated publicly they would use them.
The Ferrari floor was within the tolerances specified, the EFFECT of the floor when exposed to the tolerances of races was the issue. That the FIA had not written up the regulations to take account of race conditions does not make for cheating until after the FIA clarify the issue and amend their regulations. See also the McL double brake system of a few years back.

(Vodka by the way must be served ice cold to get the taste just right then the food/booze mix works perfectly Mr. F)

[andyps]

air cooled said:

If we accept that the Ferrari floor was "cheating" then why are we not also talking about the Renault mass damper being cheating ?

Both components passed scrutineering by stewards at GP meetings.
Both components were deemed outside of the regulations after others had eith started to use them or stated publicly they would use them.
The Ferrari floor was within the tolerances specified, the EFFECT of the floor when exposed to the tolerances of races was the issue. That the FIA had not written up the regulations to take account of race conditions does not make for cheating until after the FIA clarify the issue and amend their regulations. See also the McL double brake system of a few years back.

(Vodka by the way must be served ice cold to get the taste just right then the food/booze mix works perfectly Mr. F)

Unfortunately your hypothesis is incorrect. The mass damper and the double brake pedal were both in full view of the scrutineers who knew how they worked and what they did. It was following appeals by other teams that they were declared illegal, they were perfectly legal up to that point. The Ferrari floor was hidden from the scrutineers in the way it was designed, it passed the test but only because the test was inadequate for the way Ferrari had designed their floor. Once the test was changed to test in a more comprehensive way reflective of the force which would be applied aerodynamically when teh car was moving Ferrari had to change the floor to make sure it passed. The rule did not change, just the test. The regulations were written specifically to take account of race conditions, the test at the time was inadequate, the regulation did not change, the test did. Not complying with the regulations is cheating, whether or not the test is passed.

There is no comparison to the mass damper and double brake pedal.

[air cooled]

I don't read the FIA F1 regs so I can only speculate. If anyone has read said regs perhaps they can step forward.
That said the test for the car floor must have been specified in the regs, in writing,
how it was to be carried out and what the acceptable result should be. If by some happy chance of fate Ferrari found that they could achieve this acceptable result and gain an advantage then as has been said the test is at fault - NOT Ferrari.
If the test was changed then it must have been changed in writing so the regulation, which exist in writing, were changed. That is bad drafting of regulations not cheating.
No I am not a Fezza fan I drive a Merc.

[flemke]

jamieboy said:

flemke said:

jamieboy said:

The point I'm apparently struggling to make is that McLaren plainly did use at least some of the information they had received from Ferrari.

That has been accepted by all.

Excellent, I'm sorry that I misinterpreted your previous comments:

flemke said:

there is no evidence whatsoever that any Ferrari IP was employed by McLaren at any time.
...
Has it not occured to you that they did not use the IP ... because they never had it in the first place?

Sorry, I see the misunderstanding.

In the WMSC hearings, McLaren readily accepted that some senior members of the team beyond Coughlan had been informed of the flexi-floor (and two other immaterial facts). This was agreed at the first hearing, and even the WMSC were not bothered by that.
(From what I have read and understand) So far as the senior McLaren people knew, that would be the end of the Stepney-Coughlan contact. Subsequently Coughlan told them that Stepney was still trying to make contact, whereupon the team installed the firewall to prevent that.

Although Ferrari were really pissed off that they had been forced to make their floor legal, that was not an illicit IP/151c issue in the eyes of the WMSC.
The stuff relating to later contact between Coughlan and Stepney, especially the dossier, was the IP at issue. This is to what I was referring above.

Cheers.

[flemke]

andyps said:

air cooled said:

If we accept that the Ferrari floor was "cheating" then why are we not also talking about the Renault mass damper being cheating ?

Both components passed scrutineering by stewards at GP meetings.
Both components were deemed outside of the regulations after others had eith started to use them or stated publicly they would use them.
The Ferrari floor was within the tolerances specified, the EFFECT of the floor when exposed to the tolerances of races was the issue. That the FIA had not written up the regulations to take account of race conditions does not make for cheating until after the FIA clarify the issue and amend their regulations. See also the McL double brake system of a few years back.

(Vodka by the way must be served ice cold to get the taste just right then the food/booze mix works perfectly Mr. F)

Unfortunately your hypothesis is incorrect. The mass damper and the double brake pedal were both in full view of the scrutineers who knew how they worked and what they did. It was following appeals by other teams that they were declared illegal, they were perfectly legal up to that point. The Ferrari floor was hidden from the scrutineers in the way it was designed, it passed the test but only because the test was inadequate for the way Ferrari had designed their floor. Once the test was changed to test in a more comprehensive way reflective of the force which would be applied aerodynamically when teh car was moving Ferrari had to change the floor to make sure it passed. The rule did not change, just the test. The regulations were written specifically to take account of race conditions, the test at the time was inadequate, the regulation did not change, the test did. Not complying with the regulations is cheating, whether or not the test is passed.

There is no comparison to the mass damper and double brake pedal.

If I may add to what Andy has written:

The reason why the Ferrari floor was always illegal was explained well by Paddy Lowe at the second hearing:

"I think the issue is being blurred again by Ferrari. There were two stages to the clarification from the FIA. In the first, it was said that "you will remove illegal devices". An illegal device is a mechanism with pivots, springs, and degrees of freedom that allows one to cynically exploit the behaviour required in 3.17, in contravention of 3.15. There was a further later clarification that changed the understanding for the test. Those are two separate issues. That is clear in my statements."


As we all know, there is an overarching rule (3.15) which forbids any moveable aerodynamic device that is attached to the sprung mass of the car. That rule has been in place for many years.
More recently, the FIA provided an exception (3.17) to the rule to permit a flexible floor. This exception was that a part of the floor could move 5mm when a 500N load was applied to it. There was no other exception.
That is, the rule did not say, "the floor may move, and, for example, at 500N it may move no more than 5mm". Rather, 5mm at 500N was the only exception. Any movement beyond 5mm was always illegal, because it would violate the overarching rule of no moveable aero parts and was not protected by the single specified exception.

[air cooled]

Thanks Flemke I stand corected and now understand. "cynical use"

[jamieboy]

flemke said:

Although Ferrari were really pissed off that they had been forced to make their floor legal, that was not an illicit IP/151c issue in the eyes of the WMSC.
The stuff relating to later contact between Coughlan and Stepney, especially the dossier, was the IP at issue. This is to what I was referring above.

I understand, but I'm afraid I'm not so convinced as you. Given McLaren's willingness to make use of one set of information they received, their claimed efforts not to have taken any interest whatsoever in the subsequent sets rings slightly false.

I think we just have different takes on the same broad understanding of the facts, and I doubt we'll ever entirely agree.

edited to clarify who I meant by 'their'

Edited by jamieboy on Friday 2nd November 13:42

[jacobyte]

Lojohn

Flemke has put forward some very clear and unbiased information, but if I may also repond:

lojohn said:

jacobyte said:

there was no evidence that they:
a) gained a competitive advantage from being given information by Ferrari

a) We have seen copies of emails where Alonso asked De La Rosa to ask Coughlan to ask Stepney details about weight distribution and tyre-air - and to make sure he gets the answer urgently - before the next McLaren test. How would that count not as "gained competitive advantage from being given information by Ferrari"???

Can you point me to the lap time comparisons they did in the back-to-back tests? No? That's because they didn't happen.

lojohn said:

jacobyte said:

b) brought the sport into disrepute

b) F1 has never been brought into disrepute as much as this year by McLaren. In fact the only thing McLaren are champions of this year is "bringing the sport into disrepute" - no doubt.

Why do you say that McLaren brought the sport into disrepute? How can you measure that? The truth is - Ferrari gave McLaren information and vice versa. It was Ferrari that kicked up a huge stink, leaked confidential information to the press, and Mosley who allowed an illegal appeal. McLaren guilty? You're having a larry.

lojohn said:

The evidence is so firm that Ron never even argued his $100m fine - and he would have if he had any moral position of strength, I am sure of that.

No - Ron knew full well that an appeal would be fruitless. If Mosley could force through a $100 fine with no evidence, then such an appeal would make their penalty worse. It was not a court hearing, it was a prep school headmaster's arbitrary punishment, and you simply do not argue with the headmaster. What Max would have given for them to appeal, eh?!

[Dunit]

Out of interest how are the FIA funded and have they got sufficent funds to cover losing a private case brought by a multi billion dollar company like Mercedes for bringing their name into disrepute.

[flemke]

jamieboy said:

flemke said:

Although Ferrari were really pissed off that they had been forced to make their floor legal, that was not an illicit IP/151c issue in the eyes of the WMSC.
The stuff relating to later contact between Coughlan and Stepney, especially the dossier, was the IP at issue. This is to what I was referring above.

I understand, but I'm afraid I'm not so convinced as you. Given McLaren's willingness to make use of one set of information they received, their claimed efforts not to have taken any interest whatsoever in the subsequent sets rings slightly false.

I think we just have different takes on the same broad understanding of the facts, and I doubt we'll ever entirely agree.

edited to clarify who I meant by 'their'

I think there are two answers to your question, Jamie, although either is sufficient in its own right.
The first is that there is a big difference between applying to your own car IP that belongs to someone else and, in contrast, using someone else's IP as evidence that they themselves are cheating.
The first known exchange of information with Coughlan was specifically because Stepney was mad at Ferrari and wanted to get them in trouble. He tried to do that by going directly to the FIA. When the FIA did not follow through, his next move was to use McLaren to expose Ferrari and drop them in it.
Thus McLaren's willingness to use the flexi-floor IP was specifically to expose cheating, not to enhance their own car.

The second is that there is no evidence at all, notwithstanding the FIA's and Ferrari's great efforts to try to locate some, or to imply some, that senior people at McLaren even knew that Stepney had revealed anything other than the early allegations of illegality.
Thus the concept that, if McLaren had been willing to act on the floor allegations then perhaps they would have been willing to act on the later revealed information, fails because we have no reason to believe that anyone other than Coughlan and the two gossiping drivers were even aware that additional Ferrari IP had been given to Coughlan.

[jamieboy]

flemke said:

I think there are two answers to your question, Jamie, although either is sufficient in its own right.
The first is that there is a big difference between applying to your own car IP that belongs to someone else and, in contrast, using someone else's IP as evidence that they themselves are cheating.
The first known exchange of information with Coughlan was specifically because Stepney was mad at Ferrari and wanted to get them in trouble. He tried to do that by going directly to the FIA. When the FIA did not follow through, his next move was to use McLaren to expose Ferrari and drop them in it.
Thus McLaren's willingness to use the flexi-floor IP was specifically to expose cheating, not to enhance their own car.

The second is that there is no evidence at all, notwithstanding the FIA's and Ferrari's great efforts to try to locate some, or to imply some, that senior people at McLaren even knew that Stepney had revealed anything other than the early allegations of illegality.
Thus the concept that, if McLaren had been willing to act on the floor allegations then perhaps they would have been willing to act on the later revealed information, fails because we have no reason to believe that anyone other than Coughlan and the two gossiping drivers were even aware that additional Ferrari IP had been given to Coughlan.

You're right that there is a difference between using some elements of someone else's IP for one purpose and using different elements of that same person's IP for a different purpose. Plainly, there is also a similarity.

And while we have no evidence that anyone more senior knew about it, we do know that Jonathan Neale was aware (or at least had strong suspicions) that Coughlan had something he ought not to have had.

[flemke]

jamieboy said:

You're right that there is a difference between using some elements of someone else's IP for one purpose and using different elements of that same person's IP for a different purpose. Plainly, there is also a similarity.

And while we have no evidence that anyone more senior knew about it, we do know that Jonathan Neale was aware (or at least had strong suspicions) that Coughlan had something he ought not to have had.

Jamieboy,

You have touched on two fundamentally different chapters of the story.

In the first, I myself can't see that there is much of a similarity at all between the two. Whilst true that both the flexi-floor details and the dossier were Ferrari IP, the connection between the two ends there.
The flexi-floor was illegal, a Ferrari employee whose attempts to alert the regulator had been fruitless alerted a competitor of the illegality, the competitor used a different approach to the regulator which was successful, end of.
The fact that the disclosure was of "intellectual property" is a distraction from what mattered. The disclosure could equally well have been that, say, Ferrari had an infiltrator within McLaren who was corrupting their aero data. That is to say, whether what was disclosed was Ferrari IP was inessential; what was essential was the fact that Ferrari were breaking the rules.

The dossier, on the other hand, was full (one presumes) of genuine Ferrari IP, and its value lay precisely in the fact that it was (possibly unique) IP.


The Jonathan Neale episode is different again.
When I read the transcripts, pretty much every accusation that Todt, Mosley and Tozzi made struck me as utter bullshit: histrionical, one-sided, out of context, illogical, utterly tendentious. These were the arguments of a pair of barristers (supplemented by a very clever team principal) whose professional training had been specifically to make the most persuasive case possible on behalf of one party at the expense of the other. I could also say, "at the expense of the truth" - not in the sense that one would expect them to lie, but rather that one would expect them consciously and comprehensively to ignore any fact or piece of logic or common sense that would tend to exonerate their client's opponent.
So page after page of their bleatings seemed pretty feeble, that is, until I read Neale's testimony. Until and after I read his account, I thought (and continue to think) that McLaren had no case to answer. Neale's action in the instance that you cite, however, gave me pause.

It is easy to empathise with Neale. He was, it seemed, dealing with an employee who was talented but annoying, requiring more management time and effort than one would wish to have to devote to a single employee.
In the event, it seemed that Neale had spent a long meal dealing with Coughlan's personal career "issues". With most people, these are always the same stories - "I want more respect, more authority, more money, and I want to know what my future is at this company." Not exactly an original theme.
After the meal and lengthy, tedious discussion, Neale thought that matters were settled (at least for the time being). As Neale was standing to leave, it seems, Coughlan said, "One other thing, in strictest confidence..." and he put his envelope on the table.
Neale acted as any human would have been inclined to do. He had had more than enough of Mike Coughlan for one day, he had other important matters to attend to, he didn't want to have to deal with whatever new personal issue Coughlan might raise. (I say "personal", because, one would think, if it was a techical issue Coughlan would be taking it up with his more technical colleagues, rather than with Neale.) Thus Neale replied - in effect - "Mike, I'm not interested. You know the difference between right and wrong, so just make sure that you do the right thing." Neale wanted to get out of there and back to what he thought were more important things.

One wishes that Neale had, instead, asked exactly what Coughlan wanted to keep in the strictest confidence. Was there any chance that the earlier Stepney contacts had taken a new turn? Was Coughlan, apparently a somewhat unsettled personality, involved in something else that required adult supervision? Neale would not have known, and one wishes that he had wanted to find out.

Was this lack of curiosity of Neale's a cardinal sin? No. Was it evidence, in Mosley's prejudiced and despicable perversion of language, evidence of "a culture of spying" at McLaren? Not in the least.
At worst, it was symptomatic of "a culture of reality" within the sport, in which the players change teams nearly as often as they change their socks, where huge sums of money are spent taking revealing photographs of competitors' aero parts and making sonic recordings to estimate engine speeds, where common third-party suppliers inevitably let slip to one team another team's IP, and where rival drivers dine together and exchange details about weight distribution, tyre pressures and whatever else they might know.

In this case, Neale's position was understandable. His behaviour was reasonable, and normally would not be the subject of scrutiny and second-guessing. Because his behaviour was not above reproach, however, he and his team were caught in a witch hunt in which ultimately they were dropped into a large kettle of boiling water.

So, yes, I'd agree with your suggestion that Neale ought to have reacted differently. I have no doubt whatever that other members of other teams would have abused the Ferrari IP to a intergalactically-large extent, rather than eschewing its potentiality as McLaren did.
The penalty for his lapse was absurd; nonetheless, one does wish that Neale had been more curious, or, perhaps we should say, more suspicious.

Cheers.

[jamieboy]

flemke said:

A lot of stuff

As ever, a well-argued case. As I said earlier, I doubt that you and I will reach the same conclusion, despite both of us apparently having broadly the same understanding of the facts.

[35secToNuvolari]

flemke said:

This does not even get into the amount of information that personnel take with them when they move teams, such as when Tombazis went from Ferrari to McLaren, and then back to Ferrari again two years later.
What is the probability that the '07 Ferrari benefited from the aerodynamic knowledge that Tombazis acquired at McLaren and could have taken with him back to Italy? I would say it is a near-certainty.

So now the two cars are similar enough in concept for ideas to be employed accross platforms? Both cars follow different enough concepts where Mclaren's data is most likely useless to ferrari. And I doubt that ferrari 'sent' Tombazis. Why would they be interested in anything Mclaren had at the time; ferrari was winning championships at the time. On the other hand though, Mclaren had much to gain from hiring away a top aero-man from a champion competitor. I think any F1 team would be sceptical about other team members soliciting a job, and Mclaren more-so when the employee is a f-man. It's more certain that he was scouted.

[tim the pool man]

zaktoo said:

"Yes, your honour, I stole 100 pounds, but I didn't spend it."

"Very well, acquitted!"

Maybe in your wet dreams.

Actually, "someone gave me £100 which belonged to their employer, but I didn't spend it. Here, you can have it back..."

eta "must read entire thread before posting comment that someone else has already made more eloquently"

Edited by tim the pool man on Saturday 3rd November 07:10

[flemke]

35secToNuvolari said:

flemke said:

This does not even get into the amount of information that personnel take with them when they move teams, such as when Tombazis went from Ferrari to McLaren, and then back to Ferrari again two years later.
What is the probability that the '07 Ferrari benefited from the aerodynamic knowledge that Tombazis acquired at McLaren and could have taken with him back to Italy? I would say it is a near-certainty.

So now the two cars are similar enough in concept for ideas to be employed accross platforms? Both cars follow different enough concepts where Mclaren's data is most likely useless to ferrari. And I doubt that ferrari 'sent' Tombazis. Why would they be interested in anything Mclaren had at the time; ferrari was winning championships at the time. On the other hand though, Mclaren had much to gain from hiring away a top aero-man from a champion competitor. I think any F1 team would be sceptical about other team members soliciting a job, and Mclaren more-so when the employee is a f-man. It's more certain that he was scouted.

Of course McLaren's data would have been useless if one had wanted to slap them onto an analysis of a different car. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about understanding the conception and integration of an alternative design philosophy, with a view to learning from it and applying those lessons to one's own car.
If you think that there is literally nothing that can be learned from one design team and applied to another team's car, I suggest you have a word with the World Motor Sport Council. They seem to think that one team's data could have value to another team, but it would be great if they were disabused of that mistaken notion.

Why would Ferrari have been interested in anything McLaren had at the time?
Even if Ferrari had not have been interested in "McLaren" in toto (although they were), I can promise you they were interested in the thoughts of Adrian Newey - under whom Tombazis directly worked.

As for soliciting jobs, of course it works both ways. Sometimes a guy is head-hunted, other times a guy wants to leave - for family reasons, internal political reasons, more pay - and he solicits other teams.
I believe that a certain F1 driver has recently left his team and is looking for a new job. If Ferrari were in a position to do so, I strongly suspect that they would hire him, despite the fact that it would have been he who came to them.

Edited by flemke on Saturday 3rd November 10:30

[skwdenyer]

jacobyte said:

skwdenyer said:

jacobyte said:

ETA: All the teams sign up to the FIA's sporting code. This is in no way related to the real legal system, and as such whatever Max wants, will happen, and there's nowt you can do about it. It is simply Max's microcosmic megalomaniac's playground. He is a very clever man, not to be underestimated, and he knows how to manipulate key people and twist meanings (after all, he is a silk)

My understanding is that the FIA bows to the courts of France in extremis, so there is a further right of appeal beyond the FIA, only McLaren haven't opted to take it.

Of course, for true criminal issues the French courts would deal with it.

The thing is, if McLaren were to take the FIA to the "real" courts (for extortion, blackmail, etc), they would win. But the FIA would most likely make thier life a real misery, or even prevent them from taking part in anything ever again.

Sorry for the late response, but I think the point is important. "The courts" is a well-understood term encompassing both the civil and criminal courts.

Clearly any body of any type must bow to the criminal courts. However sporting clubs, societies, and indeed general business contracts can be written in such a way as to more-or-less preclude using the civil courts (of one or another or many countries) as the final court of appeal for internal disputes. In the FIA's case, the French (civil) courts are specifically allowed as the final court of appeal.

Therefore McLaren could, were they so minded, have brought a case against the FIA in the French civil courts to settle the issue. However they elected not to do so (and I read nothing into that decision one way or another).

[skwdenyer]

air cooled said:

No one has picked up on the news that the McL fine is to be paid partly from future TV revenue. That,to me, is part of the fix. It is to stop McL telling the Bernie & Max show to "F**k Off!" and McL not to take part causing a massive drop in TV ratings and loss of revenue to Bernie & Max. That's also why the McL drivers could still "take part" in the drivers' championship - without them who's going to watch.

I'm not sure you're quite right here - much was made of this at the time. The red herring of your comment is that the effect of the fine is still to make McLaren $100m worse off than they would otherwise have been. Therefore it is a $100m fine to McLaren. If McLaren had just dropped out of the rest of the season they would still have been $100m worse off than they would otherwise have been, although they would undoubtedly have faced some stiff penalites from the FIA and/or FOA for non-performance.

air cooled said:

Thats the same as Max saying Hamilton may be bad for F1 - loss of ratings and profit to Bernie & Max.

Interestingly Max & Co don't really make much "profit" from F1 since they sold off the commercial rights for (realistically) the rest of time to Bernie. The fine is quite a neat way of raking in some revenue :-)

[flemke]

skwdenyer said:

Interestingly Max & Co don't really make much "profit" from F1 since they sold off the commercial rights for (realistically) the rest of time to Bernie. The fine is quite a neat way of raking in some revenue :-)

That would have been when those hard bargainers at the FIA gave Bernie the 100-year contract, without putting it out to competitive tender.