McLaren's HQ Investigated / Renault to answer spying charge

[TheMoose]

At the start of the year, it was proven that they'd been spying on McLaren had'nt it?

No that is wrong.
The only thing Ferrari got penalized for was the "moving floor" & the only reason it was protested is McLaren knew about it because they had the stolen info!

 

[Sureboss]

Was it much of a penalty? They still kept the points for the race they won with the illegal part.

How the FIA got told about it, is funny though, if that is what happened.

 

[Roo]

It wasn't actually illegal in Melbourne. It was allowed due to a grey area in the rules. The rule was subsequently clarified for the following race in Sepang.

And yes, it was Stepney who mentioned to Coughlan that McLaren should probably raise the issue with the FIA.

 

[m7ammed]

Was it much of a penalty? They still kept the points for the race they won with the illegal part.

How the FIA got told about it, is funny though, if that is what happened.

people keep saying that the floor was illegal , it wasn't when it was raced as it totally obied the rules after that they changed the rules so Ferrari and any other team who might be using the same idea would need to change it.

 

[Eagle]

Teams such as McLaren and Red Bull.

 

[Metar]

I thought it was mainly Ferrari and BMW who had this device to change the floor a bit?

Red Bull had flexi-wings at Barcelona, though.

 

[Eagle]

FIA Statement responding to Damon Hill:

"On learning how the device functioned, the FIA concluded that although it complied with the letter of the rules, it was outside the spirit. Ferrari were therefore asked to modify it as were McLaren and Red Bull who were running similar devices.

 

[Greycap]

Now that makes it interesting, McLaren has been trying to keep the saint image while bashing Ferrari about the bottom. Whoops.

Wonder how they got the idea of using it themselves...

 

[<_Spike_>]

Despite Flavio protesting R's innocence over the Renault thing...seems members of his team say otherwise, bit of egg on Flavio's face I feel there.

Although team boss Flavio Briatore has protested innocence in the new spying controversy surrounding Renault, a new report has claimed that 15 members of the team examined McLaren-Mercedes technical data.

Phil Mackereth, formerly a McLaren engineer, made the switch to Renault in 2006 and loaded information about his former team's MP4-22 chassis onto his workstation at Enstone.

Briatore has conceded that the now suspended Mackereth "showed" some technical drawings of McLaren systems to his new colleagues at Renault, but he has denied that his team made use of the data.

Investigations

However, Autosport reports that recent investigations by both McLaren and Renault acknowledge that 'more than 15 engineers in total examined the information from McLaren, which included details on the 2007 car'.

The report also states 'it is believed each of these has confirmed the fact in writing. Sources have suggested that the engineers are not just junior staff members, but also include head of vehicle performance and R&D, deputy technical director, deputy chief designer and chief designer Tim Densham'.

Should the veracity of these allegations be confirmed, the Anglo-French constructor faces similar sanction to that which McLaren received in September.

Complaint

McLaren launched a complaint against Renault ahead of September's WMSC meeting which saw the former fined $100 million and stripped of their constructors' championship points after being found guilty of possessing confidential Ferrari information.

However, the precise nature of the complaint was never disclosed.

Rumours circulated that it related to the spying controversy, with sources mooting the theory that the focus was on a technical element on Renault's R27 challenger.

 

[Sureboss]

FIA Statement responding to Damon Hill:

I hadn't realised that.

*Has it quoted the statement or do I look stupid?

 

[m7ammed]

a 100$ million fine to Renault is going to be huge I would of thought as they don't have the same budget as McMerc, anybody know the exact info

 

[Metar]

It'll bankrupt the roadgoing department and make us lose our pretty RenaulSport Clios

 

[Sureboss]

Bankrupt them?

Their cars can't cost that much, just a trip down to Ikea will sort them out.

 

[Blake]

a 100$ million fine to Renault is going to be huge I would of thought as they don't have the same budget as McMerc, anybody know the exact info

This is why I keep saying that Renault are screwed.

The board of directors at Renault are very big on efficiency, dollars for points, a $100m fine would probably see Renault withdraw from the sport if they couldn&#8217;t raise the money from other sources.

I don&#8217;t see them winding down their operations for a few years to try and cover the cost, and unless they get the Spanish money that is following Alonso around I don&#8217;t think they&#8217;d be able to simply absorb such a fine.

They&#8217;re screwed.

EDIT: In reference to Renault&#8217;s budget, it was less than $400 million for the 2007 season.

 

[m7ammed]

so a 100$ mill fine is about 25-40% of their budget , from a business point of view thats a lot

 

[Alfaholic]

There is a small difference between "promptly informing McLaren of the situation and immediately after the FIA and constantly and regularly keeping McLaren and the FIA informed on all relevant findings" and trying to find out the exact gas used in Ferrari's tyres, revealing their moving bottom, knowing the exact weight distribution of their car, getting to know their race tactics... Dennis admitted none of the latters but the drivers did.

Renault doesn't seem to have taken quite the same advantage of the information as McLaren.

I agree that Flavio's actions look different to Ron's if you assume that Ron was lying when he said he knew nothing about the shared info until he informed Max after his altercation with Alonso. In terms of an FIA punishment though, this is irrelevant as the FIA made it clear that the punishment was for possession of the info, not its use. On that standing, McLaren and Renault are equally guilty.

There's another thing here that's confusing me though. I thought, like everyone else here seems to, that it was McLaren who protested the Ferrari deformable floor thing. Yet, if they had indeed done so, this certainly was not used in the FIA enquiry as proof that McLaren had used the Ferrari documentation to gain an advantage. Why not? Also, McLaren were told to get rid of their own similar floor... why would they have protested against a piece of technology that they themselves were using?

Did McLaren actually protest about the floor?

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

so a 100$ mill fine is about 25-40% of their budget , from a business point of view thats a lot

Well first of all, there are significant differences between what McLaren was caught and found guilty of doing compared to what appears to be the case against Renault.

Secondly, it wasn't "really" $100 million dollar fine, because although they were excluded from the Constructor's championship, they could and did earn money for their final standings in the constructor's championship, and that was applied to the fine. So had they actually earned more points than Ferrari (which they fell two points shy of doing thanks largely to Alonso's "extended" pit stop during Q3 in Hungary), that would have meant the fine would have only been $50 million.

I have heard F1 budgets for some teams are well over $500 million a year. In F1's own TV program, "Inside F1" they reported that Toyota spent over $600 million in 2006 on their F1 program.

That said, even $50 million and certainly $100 million is a huge fine even for billion dollar companies, although I still feel McLaren got off relatively easy, and could have easily been banned from F1 if it were not for the fact that McLaren is a big part of the success of F1, and without it's participation, F1 would stand to lose hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars in revenue from sponsors, advertising, licensing, etc.

 

[peterjford]

There's another thing here that's confusing me though. I thought, like everyone else here seems to, that it was McLaren who protested the Ferrari deformable floor thing. Yet, if they had indeed done so, this certainly was not used in the FIA enquiry as proof that McLaren had used the Ferrari documentation to gain an advantage. Why not? Also, McLaren were told to get rid of their own similar floor... why would they have protested against a piece of technology that they themselves were using?

Did McLaren actually protest about the floor?

Perhaps the movable floor did not work well with the rest of the MP4-22 so they did protest because Ferrari was getting more of an advantage from it.

I too want to know if they actually did protest the floor.

 

[m7ammed]

Well first of all, there are significant differences between what McLaren was caught and found guilty of doing compared to what appears to be the case against Renault.

Secondly, it wasn't "really" $100 million dollar fine, because although they were excluded from the Constructor's championship, they could and did earn money for their final standings in the constructor's championship, and that was applied to the fine. So had they actually earned more points than Ferrari (which they fell two points shy of doing thanks largely to Alonso's "extended" pit stop during Q3 in Hungary), that would have meant the fine would have only been $50 million.

I have heard F1 budgets for some teams are well over $500 million a year. In F1's own TV program, "Inside F1" they reported that Toyota spent over $600 million in 2006 on their F1 program.

That said, even $50 million and certainly $100 million is a huge fine even for billion dollar companies, although I still feel McLaren got off relatively easy, and could have easily been banned from F1 if it were not for the fact that McLaren is a big part of the success of F1, and without it's participation, F1 would stand to lose hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars in revenue from sponsors, advertising, licensing, etc.

yeah but Toyota has the biggest budget , Renault were always about how they could make a winning car with a small/lesser budget than the Big teams...

 

[Scaff]

Well first of all, there are significant differences between what McLaren was caught and found guilty of doing compared to what appears to be the case against Renault.

McLaren were given the fine and docked all manufacturers points for being in possesion of Ferrari technical data, the penalties were not given for use of the data, as the FIA have been unable to prove that in any way at all. I've read the entire transcripts from both FIA meeting on the case and it is not stated at all that McLaren made use of the data.

Now aside from the lack of a hearing (yet) on the Renault case, that sounds remarkably similar to the McLaren case to me. Both teams have acknowledged having data from another team, and both deny using it in any way. Now if the FIA were unable to prove that McLaren used the Ferrari data (and they did not prove use at all), then by simply acknowledging possesion Renault are in exactly the same situation.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

McLaren were given the fine and docked all manufacturers points for being in possesion of Ferrari technical data, the penalties were not given for use of the data, as the FIA have been unable to prove that in any way at all. I've read the entire transcripts from both FIA meeting on the case and it is not stated at all that McLaren made use of the data.

Now aside from the lack of a hearing (yet) on the Renault case, that sounds remarkably similar to the McLaren case to me. Both teams have acknowledged having data from another team, and both deny using it in any way. Now if the FIA were unable to prove that McLaren used the Ferrari data (and they did not prove use at all), then by simply acknowledging possesion Renault are in exactly the same situation.

I'm certainly not going to get in a debate as to what constitutes "using the data", as one doesn't have to change your car to use a competitor’s data. The fact remains the same, and what I said and you quoted, that McLaren was caught and found guilty of espionage, and considering the amount of data, and all the lies that were made to attempt to cover it up, the conversations about the data between the test driver and Alonso, and the whole moving floor scenario, the amount of time McLaren had access to all that data before finally being forced to come clean... clearly even McLaren isn't pretending that the data was never looked at, and immediately destroyed or returned to Ferrari.

So yes, I remain convinced McLaren got off easy with just a fine (and technically they were not docked their constructor’s points - they were only prevented from winning the constructor’s championship, and that they would still earn the season ending prize money based on their constructor’s points, and that money would be used to pay off part of the fine), despite the size of it, and despite no publicly revealed evidence that McLaren made any adjustments to their car based on the Ferrari data they had... although trying to prove something like that would be next to impossible as long as McLaren didn't make any obvious changes that were exactly like the Ferrari data.


The apparent significant differences (we still don't know exactly what Renault had of McLaren's and who saw it, and for how long - right now there are very opposing statements being made public) between McLaren's espionage and Renault's are the amount of data, persuadably the type of data (considering how little of it they apparently had), the claim that Renault immediately destroyed the data when they discovered it.. Although I doubt this to be true, and the claim that they immediately informed McLaren and the FIA when they discovered the McLaren data that Phil Mackereth had taken from McLaren.

Obviously the facts on this new case need to be made public before we really know how they compare.

 

[Scaff]

The fact remains the same, and what I said and you quoted, that McLaren was caught and found guilty of espionage, and considering the amount of data, and all the lies that were made to attempt to cover it up, the conversations about the data between the test driver and Alonso, and the whole moving floor scenario, the amount of time McLaren had access to all that data before finally being forced to come clean... clearly even McLaren isn't pretending that the data was never looked at, and immediately destroyed or returned to Ferrari.

No they were not, McLaren were found to be in breach of Article 151(c) of the FIA sporting code, which reads as follows...

151. Breach of rules
Any of the following offences in addition to any offences specifically referred to previously, shall be deemed to be a breach of these rules :
a) All bribery or attempt, directly or indirectly, to bribe any person having official duties in relation to a competition or being employed in any manner in connection with a competition and the acceptance of, or offer to accept, any bribe by such an official or employee.
b) Any action having as its object the entry or participation in a competition of an automobile known to be ineligible therefor.
c) Any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally.

...just because the press called it a spying issue does not make them guilty of espionage. Having read all of the transcripts involved in this case very little is actually 'proven' (here's a good game - see how may times the words prove and proven are used in the transcripts of the meetings), beyond McLaren having access to the data and discussing it. Even the FIA acknowledge that they can only speculate that McLaren may have used the data, and in some cases they may well have been able to obtain it from observation of the 'red' cars.

Given the overal lack of real detail in the McLaren case (from the FIA transcripts themselves) it sets a precident that may well cause a huge amount of problems for Renault and other teams in the future. Renault acknowledge that they had access to the data and that senior technical staff and engineers looked at it; that simple fact alone means it 'must' have had some effect of the direction they took with the car (using the FIA's own logic from the McLaren case).

The FIA did not find that McLaren had hidden information or not been forthcoming with information as soon as it was known at the very top, quite the opposite....

The WMSC has taken note of McLaren’s position that an injustice would occur if
a penalty were imposed without the FIA having accepted McLaren’s offer to
inspect the McLaren premises and designs for evidence of Ferrari technology
having been copied. However, as noted above, neither the finding of a breach nor
the imposition of a penalty require evidence of McLaren having directly
incorporated Ferrari technology. Nonetheless, the WMSC have noted and taken
account of the open and co-operative nature of this offer and taken this into
account in reaching this Decision.

...the FIA acknowledge in the ruling that much of the final information was provided by McLaren.


While they may be rather dry reading, the actual transcripts are quite interesting in regard to what was actually presented as evidence, such as the FIA admiting that the ruling would not actually pass the tests required by criminal law....

8.4 McLaren has made detailed submissions indicating that none of the information
received enhanced the McLaren car. McLaren has suggested to the WMSC that
unless “actual use” and a demonstrated and itemised performance advantage can
be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. to a criminal law standard of proof), the
WMSC is not permitted at law to impose a penalty.


8.5 The WMSC rejects this suggestion. The WMSC has full jurisdiction to apply
Article 151(c) and stresses that it is not necessary for it to demonstrate that any
confidential Ferrari information was directly copied by McLaren or put to direct
use in the McLaren car to justify a finding that Article 151(c) was breached and/orthat a penalty is merited. Nor does the WMSC need to show that any information
improperly held led to any specifically identified sporting advantage, or indeed
any advantage at all. Rather, the WMSC is entitled to treat possession of another
team’s information as an offence meriting a penalty on its own if it so chooses.

...regards

Scaff

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

No they were not, McLaren were found to be in breach of Article 151(c) of the FIA sporting code, which reads as follows..

Seems like a bad case of semantics and legalese terminology getting in the way of common sense and understanding. Potato, Potatoe.

 

[SauberBMW]

i dont see why teams would want to spy. that takes the fun and compition out of the sport. if Mclaren wasn't bad enough, now we have renault.

hopefully everybody learns a valuable lesson.

 

[peterjford]

i dont see why teams would want to spy. that takes the fun and compition out of the sport. if Mclaren wasn't bad enough, now we have renault.

hopefully everybody learns a valuable lesson.

They spy because this is their business, they don't do it for the fun (well, at least not entirely for the fun).

 

[Scaff]

Seems like a bad case of semantics and legalese terminology getting in the way of common sense and understanding. Potato, Potatoe.

In which case can I reserve the right to say that Ferrari cheated by using a moveable floor and front splitter stay; that they were parts that 'bent' the rules and required a rewording of the technical regulations is no more or less a case of semantics. Particularly in regard to the stay.

i dont see why teams would want to spy. that takes the fun and compition out of the sport. if Mclaren wasn't bad enough, now we have renault.

hopefully everybody learns a valuable lesson.

Oh come on, do you honestly believe that these are isolated cases restricted to F1 and these two teams. Its done to gain a competitive edge or to see what edge the opposition has, its been done for years to one degree or another, in all branches or motorsport. We can argue about the moral right or wrong of it all day long, but the why is quite plain.

You also have the issue of technical staff moving from one team to another, as they will always take some 'learned' knowledge with them, does this constitute spying or cheating?

On the general subject of cheating. Racecar Engineering prints a list of penalties and fines each month, its quite staggering to see that cheating is by all accounts a standard part of NASCAR operations, judging by the sheer volume of fines and penalties the series hands out.


Regards

Scaff

 

[m7ammed]

some people are saying that teams are cheating but what we seem to forget is that its the individuals who do something that effects the companies and its not the other way around atleast in this case

 

[Metar]

You also have the issue of technical staff moving from one team to another, as they will always take some 'learned' knowledge with them, does this constitute spying or cheating?

Didn't a certain Brabham engineer with the idea of a slanted BMW Turbo-4 to get better airflow get to test this out with a certain Woking-based outfit on their lower-height and more-reliable Honda V6?

On the general subject of cheating. Racecar Engineering prints a list of penalties and fines each month, its quite staggering to see that cheating is by all accounts a standard part of NASCAR operations, judging by the sheer volume of fines and penalties the series hands out.

Yet another reason to subscribe to this magazine, which sounds quite interesting. On that subject, Ferrari's spied-after tyre-inflation gas and variable brake-bias systems were analyzed here, which already prompted Blake to subscribe, and makes me want to. Your recommendation?

 

[Scaff]

Didn't a certain Brabham engineer with the idea of a slanted BMW Turbo-4 to get better airflow get to test this out with a certain Woking-based outfit on their lower-height and more-reliable Honda V6?



Yet another reason to subscribe to this magazine, which sounds quite interesting. On that subject, Ferrari's spied-after tyre-inflation gas and variable brake-bias systems were analyzed here, which already prompted Blake to subscribe, and makes me want to. Your recommendation?

I would strongly recommend subscribing to Racecar Engineering, while it is a very tech heavy publication (part of the appeal for me) it looks at motorsport in more detail that any other publication.

The mentioned piece on the Ferrari tech data is excellent, covering the far more controversial flexible floor and stay in great detail. Quite frankly the stay was a completely cynical exploitation of the tech regulations, designed to be inflexible up to the load limits of the regulations, but then becoming a moveable aero component above the load limit.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Metar]

I would strongly recommend subscribing to Racecar Engineering, while it is a very tech heavy publication (part of the appeal for me) it looks at motorsport in more detail that any other publication.

I was looking for something like that, explaining the actual mechanics and covering technical stuff more than F1.com's Technical Analysis.

When the new paycheck arrives then

The mentioned piece on the Ferrari tech data is excellent, covering the far more controversial flexible floor and stay in great detail. Quite frankly the stay was a completely cynical exploitation of the tech regulations, designed to be inflexible up to the load limits of the regulations, but then becoming a moveable aero component above the load limit.


Regards

Scaff

So basically, it's designed to flex as soon as the loads are above the limits set by the rules?