| RALLYT-WRX | 07-26-2007 01:09 PM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck;18842046]The thing about it being whiny is it happens ALL of the time, and no one goes on the hunts that Ferrari has done.
I don't see how "stealing" these documents is like stealing millions of dollars either.
The problem is we don't know how much McLaren actually knew, so its difficult to say they should have ponied up to the fact that they had it.
I don't see how their accomplishments has anything to do with the matter either. Many other manufactures have been very successful and they don't go on hunts like this.[/QUOTE]
How is not like stealing millions? Do you think all those people work for free? Or that the parts they build from those plans are free?
I am pretty sure those documents must have had some pretty "top secret" (the whole floor/undertray thing) info on them if Ferrari went to this must trouble. It's not like the they got a hold of Todt's personal sweater cleaning service phone number...... :)
And you know darn well that if Ferrari got a hold of McLaren's secret documents, McLaren would be doing the exact same thing as Ferrari.
Accomplishments have a lot to do with this, Ferrari's reputation is on the line everytime they take the track. So they are going to do everything they can do to uphold and protect that dynasty. Ferrari has a lot on the line not just with F1 but all the other motorsports they participate in. Afterall Ferrari's philosphy is Racing comes first. And when compared to McLaren they are also a large production road car manufacturer, which makes it even more important to uphold their reputation.
And here are some stats:
* Most constructor championships: 14
* Most driver championships: 14
* Most wins (all-time): 197
* Most wins (season): 15 (tied with McLaren)
* Most podiums (all-time): 591
* Most podiums (season): 29
* Most pole positions (all-time): 191
* Most points (all-time): 4,652.27
* Most points (season): 262
* Highest winning percentage: 26% (for teams with at least 10 wins)
In 2004, Ferrari also surpassed Ford as the most successful F1 engine manufacturer, with 182 wins (to Ford's 176 wins). Due to the availability of the Cosworth V8 to private teams, a total of 6,639 Ford-powered cars were entered between 1967 and 2004, compared to 1,979 starts for Ferrari and Petronas-badged engines during the same period.
How could you not want to protect that?
My McLaren was wrong, and if the FIA would have found evidence that they used those documents to gain an advantage over Ferrari...................... well let's just say I hope that's not true.
I don't see how "stealing" these documents is like stealing millions of dollars either.
The problem is we don't know how much McLaren actually knew, so its difficult to say they should have ponied up to the fact that they had it.
I don't see how their accomplishments has anything to do with the matter either. Many other manufactures have been very successful and they don't go on hunts like this.[/QUOTE]
How is not like stealing millions? Do you think all those people work for free? Or that the parts they build from those plans are free?
I am pretty sure those documents must have had some pretty "top secret" (the whole floor/undertray thing) info on them if Ferrari went to this must trouble. It's not like the they got a hold of Todt's personal sweater cleaning service phone number...... :)
And you know darn well that if Ferrari got a hold of McLaren's secret documents, McLaren would be doing the exact same thing as Ferrari.
Accomplishments have a lot to do with this, Ferrari's reputation is on the line everytime they take the track. So they are going to do everything they can do to uphold and protect that dynasty. Ferrari has a lot on the line not just with F1 but all the other motorsports they participate in. Afterall Ferrari's philosphy is Racing comes first. And when compared to McLaren they are also a large production road car manufacturer, which makes it even more important to uphold their reputation.
And here are some stats:
* Most constructor championships: 14
* Most driver championships: 14
* Most wins (all-time): 197
* Most wins (season): 15 (tied with McLaren)
* Most podiums (all-time): 591
* Most podiums (season): 29
* Most pole positions (all-time): 191
* Most points (all-time): 4,652.27
* Most points (season): 262
* Highest winning percentage: 26% (for teams with at least 10 wins)
In 2004, Ferrari also surpassed Ford as the most successful F1 engine manufacturer, with 182 wins (to Ford's 176 wins). Due to the availability of the Cosworth V8 to private teams, a total of 6,639 Ford-powered cars were entered between 1967 and 2004, compared to 1,979 starts for Ferrari and Petronas-badged engines during the same period.
How could you not want to protect that?
My McLaren was wrong, and if the FIA would have found evidence that they used those documents to gain an advantage over Ferrari...................... well let's just say I hope that's not true.
| StuBeck | 07-26-2007 01:55 PM |
Yes, I think everyone is working for free, and Schumacher craps rainbows. Intellectual property like that has no value because it is being used right now by Ferrari. No other team can use it without getting into massive trouble (like Ferrari tried to get McLaren into) so until they allow them to sell it, it has no value.
The undertray thing wasn't based on these documents which Couglin had, Stephney told him about it. So McLaren can not have been helped by Couglin having htem.
The thing you don't seem to understand is this does happen all the time. Couglin and Stephney were going to go to Honda and show them what they've done. That is the only reason they had these documents. It wasn't to give to McLaren to better their car. They handle it privately and Ferrari has been the only team this decade to make a stink about this happening. I can assure you that more team personnel has taken documents from other teams than Ferrari.
Yes, I understand Ferrari has a large history in F1. You don't need to show me the stat's you copied and pasted from another site. Those numbers are misleading too, because in the late 60's, 70's and early 80's everyone was running the Ford DFV engine. So the number of starts skyrocketed, but that is besides the point.
I don't think making a big stink about something is going to protect Ferrari when its obvious they are being douchebags about it. The fact that Stephney had to LEAVE THE COUNTRY because of being pursued by people shows how bad they are acting. If another team came by with a car which looked exactly like Ferrari's, I could understand them getting pissed (and it wasn't their customer car like in 03 with the Sauber) and going after the other team. But as it is, the two cars look nothing alike, and its obvious to everyone involved that McLaren didn't have anything to do with it because of where the documents were found.
The undertray thing wasn't based on these documents which Couglin had, Stephney told him about it. So McLaren can not have been helped by Couglin having htem.
The thing you don't seem to understand is this does happen all the time. Couglin and Stephney were going to go to Honda and show them what they've done. That is the only reason they had these documents. It wasn't to give to McLaren to better their car. They handle it privately and Ferrari has been the only team this decade to make a stink about this happening. I can assure you that more team personnel has taken documents from other teams than Ferrari.
Yes, I understand Ferrari has a large history in F1. You don't need to show me the stat's you copied and pasted from another site. Those numbers are misleading too, because in the late 60's, 70's and early 80's everyone was running the Ford DFV engine. So the number of starts skyrocketed, but that is besides the point.
I don't think making a big stink about something is going to protect Ferrari when its obvious they are being douchebags about it. The fact that Stephney had to LEAVE THE COUNTRY because of being pursued by people shows how bad they are acting. If another team came by with a car which looked exactly like Ferrari's, I could understand them getting pissed (and it wasn't their customer car like in 03 with the Sauber) and going after the other team. But as it is, the two cars look nothing alike, and its obvious to everyone involved that McLaren didn't have anything to do with it because of where the documents were found.
| parker/slc/gc8fan | 07-26-2007 01:59 PM |
AFAIK
Ferrari only directly participates in F1.
All the other racng teams are bisically privateers.
Doesn;t really affect the argumetn, but it adds some perspective.
I think they are doing all they can to stay ontop, some of that may be low brow. imo. but you can understand the reasoning.
Ferrari only directly participates in F1.
All the other racng teams are bisically privateers.
Doesn;t really affect the argumetn, but it adds some perspective.
I think they are doing all they can to stay ontop, some of that may be low brow. imo. but you can understand the reasoning.
| RALLYT-WRX | 07-26-2007 02:46 PM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck;18842816]Yes, I think everyone is working for free, and Schumacher craps rainbows. Intellectual property like that has no value because it is being used right now by Ferrari. No other team can use it without getting into massive trouble (like Ferrari tried to get McLaren into) so until they allow them to sell it, it has no value.
The undertray thing wasn't based on these documents which Couglin had, Stephney told him about it. So McLaren can not have been helped by Couglin having htem.
The thing you don't seem to understand is this does happen all the time. Couglin and Stephney were going to go to Honda and show them what they've done. That is the only reason they had these documents. It wasn't to give to McLaren to better their car. They handle it privately and Ferrari has been the only team this decade to make a stink about this happening. I can assure you that more team personnel has taken documents from other teams than Ferrari.
Yes, I understand Ferrari has a large history in F1. You don't need to show me the stat's you copied and pasted from another site. Those numbers are misleading too, because in the late 60's, 70's and early 80's everyone was running the Ford DFV engine. So the number of starts skyrocketed, but that is besides the point.
I don't think making a big stink about something is going to protect Ferrari when its obvious they are being douchebags about it. The fact that Stephney had to LEAVE THE COUNTRY because of being pursued by people shows how bad they are acting. If another team came by with a car which looked exactly like Ferrari's, I could understand them getting pissed (and it wasn't their customer car like in 03 with the Sauber) and going after the other team. But as it is, the two cars look nothing alike, and its obvious to everyone involved that McLaren didn't have anything to do with it because of where the documents were found.[/QUOTE]
So if intellectual property has no value then why keep them behind closed doors? If the documents in question show destinct design elements that make the Ferrari work, I think they are a great value to another team, especially one that competes in the top tier of F1.
And yes I realize that designs and aero-packages are copied and stolen from teams from time to time. But whose to say that the McLaren engineers did not see the design and then base a newer design for thier own car off of it? I guess no on will ever know.
And as far as Stephney being run out of the country, oh well. To the Italian people messing with Ferrari might as well rank right up there with treason. I'd be willing to bet if the Pope tried to disban Ferrari the people would storm the Vatican Gates with pitch forks and torches.
I bet if the situation was similiar here in the states say between Ford and GM the reaction would be about the same.
And it's funny how the only people who are so quick to throw Ferrari under the train are the people are just jealous of their success or are fans of another race team.
The undertray thing wasn't based on these documents which Couglin had, Stephney told him about it. So McLaren can not have been helped by Couglin having htem.
The thing you don't seem to understand is this does happen all the time. Couglin and Stephney were going to go to Honda and show them what they've done. That is the only reason they had these documents. It wasn't to give to McLaren to better their car. They handle it privately and Ferrari has been the only team this decade to make a stink about this happening. I can assure you that more team personnel has taken documents from other teams than Ferrari.
Yes, I understand Ferrari has a large history in F1. You don't need to show me the stat's you copied and pasted from another site. Those numbers are misleading too, because in the late 60's, 70's and early 80's everyone was running the Ford DFV engine. So the number of starts skyrocketed, but that is besides the point.
I don't think making a big stink about something is going to protect Ferrari when its obvious they are being douchebags about it. The fact that Stephney had to LEAVE THE COUNTRY because of being pursued by people shows how bad they are acting. If another team came by with a car which looked exactly like Ferrari's, I could understand them getting pissed (and it wasn't their customer car like in 03 with the Sauber) and going after the other team. But as it is, the two cars look nothing alike, and its obvious to everyone involved that McLaren didn't have anything to do with it because of where the documents were found.[/QUOTE]
So if intellectual property has no value then why keep them behind closed doors? If the documents in question show destinct design elements that make the Ferrari work, I think they are a great value to another team, especially one that competes in the top tier of F1.
And yes I realize that designs and aero-packages are copied and stolen from teams from time to time. But whose to say that the McLaren engineers did not see the design and then base a newer design for thier own car off of it? I guess no on will ever know.
And as far as Stephney being run out of the country, oh well. To the Italian people messing with Ferrari might as well rank right up there with treason. I'd be willing to bet if the Pope tried to disban Ferrari the people would storm the Vatican Gates with pitch forks and torches.
I bet if the situation was similiar here in the states say between Ford and GM the reaction would be about the same.
And it's funny how the only people who are so quick to throw Ferrari under the train are the people are just jealous of their success or are fans of another race team.
| StuBeck | 07-26-2007 04:57 PM |
I know the intellectual property has value...but its one of those things which you can't quantify. Unless you have bought or sold something, you can never say how much it is worth.
The FIA knows the design of the McLaren wasn't based on the Ferrari at all. McLaren showed the FIA their designs and how they were not close to what Ferrari has. That is the reason they didn't get penalized.
Stephney was almost killed in some of the chases which happened, I think going "oh well" is underestimating it.
I don't think people would be chasing a designer from a NASCAR team if it was proven they had stolen designs to an engine (or something similar...since they all have their competitors engines.)
I'm not jealous of their success, and I used to be a fan of them. Their actions in the last 5 years have made me not be a fan. You're assuming a lot about me.
The FIA knows the design of the McLaren wasn't based on the Ferrari at all. McLaren showed the FIA their designs and how they were not close to what Ferrari has. That is the reason they didn't get penalized.
Stephney was almost killed in some of the chases which happened, I think going "oh well" is underestimating it.
I don't think people would be chasing a designer from a NASCAR team if it was proven they had stolen designs to an engine (or something similar...since they all have their competitors engines.)
I'm not jealous of their success, and I used to be a fan of them. Their actions in the last 5 years have made me not be a fan. You're assuming a lot about me.
| Hotrodguru | 07-26-2007 06:03 PM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck;18845406]The FIA knows the design of the McLaren wasn't based on the Ferrari at all. McLaren showed the FIA their designs and how they were not close to what Ferrari has. That is the reason they didn't get penalized.[/QUOTE]
Trust me, if they had documentation, they had an advantage. While mabye they didn't copy certain things they learned they could have done other things or changed things up after seeing the documents.
Trust me, if they had documentation, they had an advantage. While mabye they didn't copy certain things they learned they could have done other things or changed things up after seeing the documents.
| StuBeck | 07-26-2007 06:13 PM |
They didn't have it. Thats why they didn't get fined or kicked out.
One team member did, [I]at his house.[/I] It never touched the factory.
One team member did, [I]at his house.[/I] It never touched the factory.
| KAX | 07-26-2007 06:57 PM |
where did you see that the floor had nothing to do with the documents, and only with stepney?
from what I understood, the documents did have something to do with the floor. Thats is where mclaren found out about the floor and led them to protest. Then the FIA changed the testing and found it illegal. Then ferrari had to change their car which then gave mclaren the edge and gave them points. and points do cost millions.
oh, and they didnt prove anything. You cant say it never hit the factory because there is no possible way to prove it didnt. The only reason they didnt get fined was because there wasnt enough evidence to prove that they did. the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
from what I understood, the documents did have something to do with the floor. Thats is where mclaren found out about the floor and led them to protest. Then the FIA changed the testing and found it illegal. Then ferrari had to change their car which then gave mclaren the edge and gave them points. and points do cost millions.
oh, and they didnt prove anything. You cant say it never hit the factory because there is no possible way to prove it didnt. The only reason they didnt get fined was because there wasnt enough evidence to prove that they did. the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
| StuBeck | 07-26-2007 07:34 PM |
It was on Autosport. The floor situation was figured out before even Coughlin got the documents, so its impossible for it to have anything with it.
I don't feel bad about Ferrari at all because they made an illegeally designed part. The reason they had to change it is because the testing after the GP for the cars was made harder to pass.
Even if it "hit the factory" it didn't go into the design of the car at all, so nothing bad game from it.
I don't feel bad about Ferrari at all because they made an illegeally designed part. The reason they had to change it is because the testing after the GP for the cars was made harder to pass.
Even if it "hit the factory" it didn't go into the design of the car at all, so nothing bad game from it.
| cdvma | 07-26-2007 08:48 PM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck;18845406]I know the intellectual property has value...but its one of those things which you can't quantify. Unless you have bought or sold something, you can never say how much it is worth.[/QUOTE]
Every company in the world calculates a value on IP, R&D, advanced development ect. Just because it hasn't sold, doesn't mean you can't quantify how much it cost to make. I'm working on a project at work that hasn't seen the light of day and will likely cost $XX,XXX,XXX before we sell it. If someone stole the IP we invent to build this product, they are stealing MILLIONS in labor alone.
Stephney stole millions whether it was just him or with someone else, it cost Ferrari a lot.
Every company in the world calculates a value on IP, R&D, advanced development ect. Just because it hasn't sold, doesn't mean you can't quantify how much it cost to make. I'm working on a project at work that hasn't seen the light of day and will likely cost $XX,XXX,XXX before we sell it. If someone stole the IP we invent to build this product, they are stealing MILLIONS in labor alone.
Stephney stole millions whether it was just him or with someone else, it cost Ferrari a lot.
| StuBeck | 07-26-2007 10:06 PM |
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Your company, if needed, could sell that. Therefore it has a value. But you can't say what the value of the F2007 is because it can't be sold.
The other thing is that Stephney has only been charged, he denies taking anything, and whenever they found anything it was on his desk in his office at Marnello. Coughlin is the only one we know did something wrong.
The other thing is that Stephney has only been charged, he denies taking anything, and whenever they found anything it was on his desk in his office at Marnello. Coughlin is the only one we know did something wrong.
| KAX | 07-26-2007 10:22 PM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck;18848509]I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Your company, if needed, could sell that. Therefore it has a value. But you can't say what the value of the F2007 is because it can't be sold.[/QUOTE]
well, you're both right. It still costs Ferrari money to design all that stuff in the paper, so it has a value. But just having the documents doesnt mean Ferrari lost any money, not until Mclaren uses the documents to make the exact same thing to use themselves to take away any money ferrari would have made on it.
well, you're both right. It still costs Ferrari money to design all that stuff in the paper, so it has a value. But just having the documents doesnt mean Ferrari lost any money, not until Mclaren uses the documents to make the exact same thing to use themselves to take away any money ferrari would have made on it.
| artkevin | 07-26-2007 11:50 PM |
It has to be proved that McLaren, not Coughlin, gained directly from the taking of the documents. So far they have been found guilty of having the documents but there is no direct evidence that the team used it to their advantage.
| KAX | 07-27-2007 01:08 AM |
exactly, but that still doesnt rule out the possibility. not that im trying to keep the suspicion, just trying to keep people from jumping to conclusions of guilt/innocence when you dont have all the info.
| RALLYT-WRX | 07-27-2007 07:54 AM |
And does anyone find it ironic that McLaren gets no penalty and also just happens to be leading the championship in both drivers and manufacturers cup.
I bet if another team such as Red Bull, Sauber, etc....... did the same thing as McLaren they would be kicked out of F1 for the season. But God forbid anyone dare mess with the mighty Ron Dennis, L. Hamilton & F. Alonso. Just look and that new front end McLaren has been running this year. You can clearly see it flexing under braking and acceleration, but the FIA deemed it perfectly fine. But when Ferrari had a similar treatment last year it was deemed a movable aero device......... :rolleyes:
It also makes me curious how many Brits sit on the WMSC council.
I bet if another team such as Red Bull, Sauber, etc....... did the same thing as McLaren they would be kicked out of F1 for the season. But God forbid anyone dare mess with the mighty Ron Dennis, L. Hamilton & F. Alonso. Just look and that new front end McLaren has been running this year. You can clearly see it flexing under braking and acceleration, but the FIA deemed it perfectly fine. But when Ferrari had a similar treatment last year it was deemed a movable aero device......... :rolleyes:
It also makes me curious how many Brits sit on the WMSC council.
| StuBeck | 07-27-2007 08:11 AM |
Nope, not ironic at all.
McLaren has been found to be guilty of many things in the past (4th pedal in 98 is the first thing which comes to mind.) I think the thing with the wing moving is that the car is actually moving up and down, where Ferrari designed a part so it would move itself away from the bodywork.
McLaren has been found to be guilty of many things in the past (4th pedal in 98 is the first thing which comes to mind.) I think the thing with the wing moving is that the car is actually moving up and down, where Ferrari designed a part so it would move itself away from the bodywork.
| RALLYT-WRX | 07-27-2007 08:56 AM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck;18851404]Nope, not ironic at all.
McLaren has been found to be guilty of many things in the past (4th pedal in 98 is the first thing which comes to mind.) I think the thing with the wing moving is that the car is actually moving up and down, where Ferrari designed a part so it would move itself away from the bodywork.[/QUOTE]
Oh, a 4th pedal. I never heard of that. What exactly did it do?
McLaren has been found to be guilty of many things in the past (4th pedal in 98 is the first thing which comes to mind.) I think the thing with the wing moving is that the car is actually moving up and down, where Ferrari designed a part so it would move itself away from the bodywork.[/QUOTE]
Oh, a 4th pedal. I never heard of that. What exactly did it do?
| artkevin | 07-27-2007 10:24 AM |
[QUOTE=RALLYT-WRX;18851348]And does anyone find it ironic that McLaren gets no penalty and also just happens to be leading the championship in both drivers and manufacturers cup.
I bet if another team such as Red Bull, Sauber, etc....... did the same thing as McLaren they would be kicked out of F1 for the season. But God forbid anyone dare mess with the mighty Ron Dennis, L. Hamilton & F. Alonso. Just look and that new front end McLaren has been running this year. You can clearly see it flexing under braking and acceleration, but the FIA deemed it perfectly fine. But when Ferrari had a similar treatment last year it was deemed a movable aero device......... :rolleyes:
It also makes me curious how many Brits sit on the WMSC council.[/QUOTE]
1st time I have ever heard of a McLaren basis. :confused:
I think the McLaren front wing is illegal too but Ferrari's was CLEARLY illegal. You could see it pull a 1/2 inch away from the body at speed. You also have to remember the Renault mass dampner device which, in my mind, could never be a movable aero device. At least no more then inboard suspension or a fuel tank.
I bet if another team such as Red Bull, Sauber, etc....... did the same thing as McLaren they would be kicked out of F1 for the season. But God forbid anyone dare mess with the mighty Ron Dennis, L. Hamilton & F. Alonso. Just look and that new front end McLaren has been running this year. You can clearly see it flexing under braking and acceleration, but the FIA deemed it perfectly fine. But when Ferrari had a similar treatment last year it was deemed a movable aero device......... :rolleyes:
It also makes me curious how many Brits sit on the WMSC council.[/QUOTE]
1st time I have ever heard of a McLaren basis. :confused:
I think the McLaren front wing is illegal too but Ferrari's was CLEARLY illegal. You could see it pull a 1/2 inch away from the body at speed. You also have to remember the Renault mass dampner device which, in my mind, could never be a movable aero device. At least no more then inboard suspension or a fuel tank.
| Hotrodguru | 07-27-2007 11:04 AM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck;18846357]They didn't have it. Thats why they didn't get fined or kicked out.
One team member did, [I]at his house.[/I] It never touched the factory.[/QUOTE]
And people don't work from home? And not just anyone, we're talking about the lead designer. At some point or another, he was influenced.
One team member did, [I]at his house.[/I] It never touched the factory.[/QUOTE]
And people don't work from home? And not just anyone, we're talking about the lead designer. At some point or another, he was influenced.
| StuBeck | 07-27-2007 11:28 AM |
[QUOTE=RALLYT-WRX;18851645]Oh, a 4th pedal. I never heard of that. What exactly did it do?[/QUOTE]
In 98 McLaren ran a 4th pedal to help with cornering, it brakes on the inside wheels or something. It was banned quickly once a photographer took a picture of the pedals.
[QUOTE=Hotrodguru;18852931]And people don't work from home? And not just anyone, we're talking about the lead designer. At some point or another, he was influenced.[/QUOTE]
The FIA saw both documents, and didn't notice any design similarities between the two cars. While he had the designs, he didn't put them into the car.
In 98 McLaren ran a 4th pedal to help with cornering, it brakes on the inside wheels or something. It was banned quickly once a photographer took a picture of the pedals.
[QUOTE=Hotrodguru;18852931]And people don't work from home? And not just anyone, we're talking about the lead designer. At some point or another, he was influenced.[/QUOTE]
The FIA saw both documents, and didn't notice any design similarities between the two cars. While he had the designs, he didn't put them into the car.
| parker/slc/gc8fan | 07-27-2007 11:29 AM |
[QUOTE=RALLYT-WRX;18851645]Oh, a 4th pedal. I never heard of that. What exactly did it do?[/QUOTE]
IIRC it controled the amount of wheelspin in some tricky way.
Almost a rule breakers TC.
Someone correct or clarify please.
IIRC it controled the amount of wheelspin in some tricky way.
Almost a rule breakers TC.
Someone correct or clarify please.
| RALLYT-WRX | 07-27-2007 11:55 AM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck;18853211]In 98 McLaren ran a 4th pedal to help with cornering, it brakes on the inside wheels or something. It was banned quickly once a photographer took a picture of the pedals.
[/QUOTE]
Found it:
At the 1997 Austrian Grand Prix, Darren Heath, an F1 Racing photographer, noticed that the rear brakes of the McLarens were glowing red in an acceleration zone of the track. The magazine discovered through investigation that McLaren had installed a second brake pedal, selectable by the driver to act on one of the rear wheels. This allowed the driver to eliminate understeer and reduce wheelspin when exiting slow corners, or more usefully as slowing one half of the car to turn the car into a corner and so brake later deep into the heart of the turn. This system was not entirely legal, but was an innovation, and hence gave McLaren an advantage. As the system allowed one side of the car to be retarded compared to the other the system was considered a type of 4-wheel steering which was banned in F1. One notable backer of this complaint was Jackie Stewart; on the grid at Brazil in 1998 he aired this view in an interview with ITV. While F1 Racing suspected what McLaren were doing, they required proof to publish the story. At the Luxembourg Grand Prix the two McLarens retired from the race. This allowed Heath to take a picture of the footwell of H�kkinen's car and the second brake pedal. The story was run in the November issue of F1 Racing and lead to the system being dubbed "brake steer". Ferrari's protestations to the FIA lead to the system being banned at the 1998 Brazilian Grand Prix.[5]
Very interesting idea. I can see why it was banned so quickly.
[/QUOTE]
Found it:
At the 1997 Austrian Grand Prix, Darren Heath, an F1 Racing photographer, noticed that the rear brakes of the McLarens were glowing red in an acceleration zone of the track. The magazine discovered through investigation that McLaren had installed a second brake pedal, selectable by the driver to act on one of the rear wheels. This allowed the driver to eliminate understeer and reduce wheelspin when exiting slow corners, or more usefully as slowing one half of the car to turn the car into a corner and so brake later deep into the heart of the turn. This system was not entirely legal, but was an innovation, and hence gave McLaren an advantage. As the system allowed one side of the car to be retarded compared to the other the system was considered a type of 4-wheel steering which was banned in F1. One notable backer of this complaint was Jackie Stewart; on the grid at Brazil in 1998 he aired this view in an interview with ITV. While F1 Racing suspected what McLaren were doing, they required proof to publish the story. At the Luxembourg Grand Prix the two McLarens retired from the race. This allowed Heath to take a picture of the footwell of H�kkinen's car and the second brake pedal. The story was run in the November issue of F1 Racing and lead to the system being dubbed "brake steer". Ferrari's protestations to the FIA lead to the system being banned at the 1998 Brazilian Grand Prix.[5]
Very interesting idea. I can see why it was banned so quickly.
| artkevin | 07-27-2007 12:16 PM |
Pretty damned innovative if you ask me.
| Draken | 07-27-2007 12:37 PM |
That's probably what the builder of Stagecoaches thought when they used separate brakes on each rear wheel, to help bend the coach around corners.
How...innovative :p
How...innovative :p
| mac35 | 07-27-2007 12:37 PM |
[QUOTE=Hotrodguru;18852931]And people don't work from home? And not just anyone, we're talking about the lead designer. At some point or another, he was influenced.[/QUOTE]
And how do you know this? Or is this pure speculation from a Ferrari fan? In fact, with the 2 folks apparently planning a jump to Honda what would be the McClaren guy's motivation to use the documents to benefit McClaren as you so vehemently believe (without any substantial evidence I may add)?
And how do you know this? Or is this pure speculation from a Ferrari fan? In fact, with the 2 folks apparently planning a jump to Honda what would be the McClaren guy's motivation to use the documents to benefit McClaren as you so vehemently believe (without any substantial evidence I may add)?
| bemani | 07-27-2007 01:44 PM |
[QUOTE=RALLYT-WRX;18842231] * Most points (all-time): 4,652.27
[/QUOTE]
When was it when they awarded hundredth of a point?
[/QUOTE]
When was it when they awarded hundredth of a point?
| StuBeck | 07-27-2007 02:56 PM |
[quote]France stays, Australia to open '08 season
Friday, July 27th 2007, 12:00 GMT
The French Grand Prix will stay on the Formula One calendar in 2008 while the season will begin in Australia on March 16, the FIA said on Friday.
The French race was under threat after Bernie Ecclestone said this year's would be last Grand Prix at the Magny-Cours circuit.
Singapore and Valencia will make their debuts next year, with the latter race designated the European Grand Prix.
Canada will be the only North American race after the removal of the US Grand Prix at Indianapolis.
There will be 18 races, one more than in 2007.
Provisional 2008 calendar:
16 March Australia
23 March Malaysia
6 April Bahrain
27 April Spain
11 May Turkey
25 May Monaco
8 June Canada *
22 June France
6 July Great Britain
20 July Germany
3 August Hungary
24 August** Europe ***
7 September Italy
14 September Belgium
28 September** Singapore
12 October China
19 October Japan
2 November Brazil
* Provisional.
** Subject to circuit approval.
*** The 2008 European Grand Prix will take place in Valencia.
[/quote]
I won't be able to make it to Canada next year, one week too early :(
Friday, July 27th 2007, 12:00 GMT
The French Grand Prix will stay on the Formula One calendar in 2008 while the season will begin in Australia on March 16, the FIA said on Friday.
The French race was under threat after Bernie Ecclestone said this year's would be last Grand Prix at the Magny-Cours circuit.
Singapore and Valencia will make their debuts next year, with the latter race designated the European Grand Prix.
Canada will be the only North American race after the removal of the US Grand Prix at Indianapolis.
There will be 18 races, one more than in 2007.
Provisional 2008 calendar:
16 March Australia
23 March Malaysia
6 April Bahrain
27 April Spain
11 May Turkey
25 May Monaco
8 June Canada *
22 June France
6 July Great Britain
20 July Germany
3 August Hungary
24 August** Europe ***
7 September Italy
14 September Belgium
28 September** Singapore
12 October China
19 October Japan
2 November Brazil
* Provisional.
** Subject to circuit approval.
*** The 2008 European Grand Prix will take place in Valencia.
[/quote]
I won't be able to make it to Canada next year, one week too early :(
| StuBeck | 07-27-2007 03:00 PM |
[QUOTE=bemani;18854996]When was it when they awarded hundredth of a point?[/QUOTE]
In the 1954 British Grand Prix, seven drivers set the same fastest lap time, and each received 0.143 of a point.
In the 1954 British Grand Prix, seven drivers set the same fastest lap time, and each received 0.143 of a point.
| TheRipler | 07-27-2007 03:07 PM |
[QUOTE=Draken;18854098]That's probably what the builder of Stagecoaches thought when they used separate brakes on each rear wheel, to help bend the coach around corners.
How...innovative :p[/QUOTE]
...and lets not forget the state of the art for tractor pulls in 1929
How...innovative :p[/QUOTE]
...and lets not forget the state of the art for tractor pulls in 1929
| bitterWRX | 07-27-2007 09:52 PM |
[QUOTE=RALLYT-WRX;18851348]And does anyone find it ironic that McLaren gets no penalty and also just happens to be leading the championship in both drivers and manufacturers cup.
I bet if another team such as Red Bull, Sauber, etc....... did the same thing as McLaren they would be kicked out of F1 for the season. But God forbid anyone dare mess with the mighty Ron Dennis, L. Hamilton & F. Alonso. Just look and that new front end McLaren has been running this year. You can clearly see it flexing under braking and acceleration, but the FIA deemed it perfectly fine. But when Ferrari had a similar treatment last year it was deemed a movable aero device......... :rolleyes:
It also makes me curious how many Brits sit on the WMSC council.[/QUOTE]
I think its ironic that you're defending Ferrari when they are known to be the bigger hypocrits. Ferrari tends to always find favor with the FIA when it comes to challenging their rivals' parts. McLaren calls out Ferrari for those wheel covers in 06 as a removable cooling system... and what happened? Nothing.
By the way, the Ferrari front wing detached itself from the front nose cone. That's certainly illegal.
I bet if another team such as Red Bull, Sauber, etc....... did the same thing as McLaren they would be kicked out of F1 for the season. But God forbid anyone dare mess with the mighty Ron Dennis, L. Hamilton & F. Alonso. Just look and that new front end McLaren has been running this year. You can clearly see it flexing under braking and acceleration, but the FIA deemed it perfectly fine. But when Ferrari had a similar treatment last year it was deemed a movable aero device......... :rolleyes:
It also makes me curious how many Brits sit on the WMSC council.[/QUOTE]
I think its ironic that you're defending Ferrari when they are known to be the bigger hypocrits. Ferrari tends to always find favor with the FIA when it comes to challenging their rivals' parts. McLaren calls out Ferrari for those wheel covers in 06 as a removable cooling system... and what happened? Nothing.
By the way, the Ferrari front wing detached itself from the front nose cone. That's certainly illegal.
| chkltcow | 07-30-2007 10:23 PM |
Based on Mika Salo's most recent comments about taking out Enge at Mid Ohio and comments on Ferrari F1 spying as well as his immediate retraction of the statement, I have found a book for him....
[IMG]http://www.baneverything.org/pictures/salo.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.baneverything.org/pictures/salo.jpg[/IMG]
| StuBeck | 07-31-2007 07:00 AM |
[quote]Vettel replaces Speed at Toro Rosso
By Pablo Elizalde Tuesday, July 31st 2007, 10:08 GMT
Sebastien Vettel will replace American Scott Speed at the Toro Rosso team from the Hungarian Grand Prix, the Italian outfit have confirmed.
Vettel was released from his contract with the BMW Sauber team earlier today, and he will join Toro Rosso for the remainder of the 2007 season.
Speed had said following the European Grand Prix that he would not race again with Toro Rosso following an altercation with team boss Franz Tost. [/quote]
****, not a good start to the day :(
By Pablo Elizalde Tuesday, July 31st 2007, 10:08 GMT
Sebastien Vettel will replace American Scott Speed at the Toro Rosso team from the Hungarian Grand Prix, the Italian outfit have confirmed.
Vettel was released from his contract with the BMW Sauber team earlier today, and he will join Toro Rosso for the remainder of the 2007 season.
Speed had said following the European Grand Prix that he would not race again with Toro Rosso following an altercation with team boss Franz Tost. [/quote]
****, not a good start to the day :(
| artkevin | 07-31-2007 09:31 AM |
Not surprising but extremely sad. I really want to like STR but they make it so difficult for me.
| StuBeck | 07-31-2007 10:50 AM |
In less "piss me off" news, looks like Nelson Piquet is a bad driver
[quote]
Ex-F1 champ takes driving lessons
Nelson Piquet in a file photo from 1979
Nelson Piquet raced to victory in the 1980s
Former triple Formula One motor racing champion Nelson Piquet has been sent to driving awareness school - for repeated speeding and parking offences.
The Brazilian lost his licence after racking up too many penalty points.
Piquet and his wife Viviane, who also had her licence revoked, must attend a week of lessons to learn good and safe driving conduct, and then pass an exam.
Only then will Piquet - F1 champion in 1981, 1983 and 1987 - be allowed back behind the wheel.
"I think we have to pay for our mistakes, It's not just a speeding problem, I got tickets for all kinds of reasons, like parking where I shouldn't," Piquet told Brazilian media.
The 54-year-old had been seen speeding around the streets of Brasilia in various high-performance cars, including a BMW convertible, AFP news agency reported. [/quote]
More at [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6924089.stm[/url]
[quote]
Ex-F1 champ takes driving lessons
Nelson Piquet in a file photo from 1979
Nelson Piquet raced to victory in the 1980s
Former triple Formula One motor racing champion Nelson Piquet has been sent to driving awareness school - for repeated speeding and parking offences.
The Brazilian lost his licence after racking up too many penalty points.
Piquet and his wife Viviane, who also had her licence revoked, must attend a week of lessons to learn good and safe driving conduct, and then pass an exam.
Only then will Piquet - F1 champion in 1981, 1983 and 1987 - be allowed back behind the wheel.
"I think we have to pay for our mistakes, It's not just a speeding problem, I got tickets for all kinds of reasons, like parking where I shouldn't," Piquet told Brazilian media.
The 54-year-old had been seen speeding around the streets of Brasilia in various high-performance cars, including a BMW convertible, AFP news agency reported. [/quote]
More at [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6924089.stm[/url]
| rupertberr | 07-31-2007 11:28 AM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck;18891064]In less "piss me off" news, looks like Nelson Piquet is a bad driver
[/QUOTE]
Shouldn't winning 3 world championships give you a right to speed all the time?:devil: :lol:
Piquet getting chased by some fans:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuEcIOs1Joc[/url]
I thought the best story was of Rene Arnoux. If I remember correctly he was driving from Italy to France with his mother as a passenger. Got pulled over in Italy for doing 140 mph. I few hours later he got pulled over in France for doing 160 mph. The Italians and French shared data and the French took his license on the spot. Made his Mom drive the rest of the way home.:lol: :lol: :lol:
I couple of years ago I was following Bobby Unser after a photo shoot. We were both driving Porsches but when Bobby got up to 120 I thought better of it and dropped back down to 90. A couple of miles later I saw him pulled over. When we got back to the hotel I asked him what happened. He said he had to sign a couple of autographs and then they sent him on his way. Don't think I would have bee that lucky.:eek:
[/QUOTE]
Shouldn't winning 3 world championships give you a right to speed all the time?:devil: :lol:
Piquet getting chased by some fans:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuEcIOs1Joc[/url]
I thought the best story was of Rene Arnoux. If I remember correctly he was driving from Italy to France with his mother as a passenger. Got pulled over in Italy for doing 140 mph. I few hours later he got pulled over in France for doing 160 mph. The Italians and French shared data and the French took his license on the spot. Made his Mom drive the rest of the way home.:lol: :lol: :lol:
I couple of years ago I was following Bobby Unser after a photo shoot. We were both driving Porsches but when Bobby got up to 120 I thought better of it and dropped back down to 90. A couple of miles later I saw him pulled over. When we got back to the hotel I asked him what happened. He said he had to sign a couple of autographs and then they sent him on his way. Don't think I would have bee that lucky.:eek:
| Hotrodguru | 07-31-2007 11:59 AM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck;18853211]The FIA saw both documents, and didn't notice any design similarities between the two cars. While he had the designs, he didn't put them into the car.[/QUOTE]
No, I understand that point Stu. I'm just saying, and this is based on myself being in the motorsport industry since age 8. If he had some documents he didn't necessarily have to copy the design(s).
What this could have done is, gave him the heads up on where the Ferrari package might be stronger and how he could improve the McLaren package to counter this.
[QUOTE=mac35;18854106]And how do you know this? Or is this pure speculation from a Ferrari fan? In fact, with the 2 folks apparently planning a jump to Honda what would be the McClaren guy's motivation to use the documents to benefit McClaren as you so vehemently believe (without any substantial evidence I may add)?[/QUOTE]
Actually, I'm a McLaren and Williams fan :)
No, I understand that point Stu. I'm just saying, and this is based on myself being in the motorsport industry since age 8. If he had some documents he didn't necessarily have to copy the design(s).
What this could have done is, gave him the heads up on where the Ferrari package might be stronger and how he could improve the McLaren package to counter this.
[QUOTE=mac35;18854106]And how do you know this? Or is this pure speculation from a Ferrari fan? In fact, with the 2 folks apparently planning a jump to Honda what would be the McClaren guy's motivation to use the documents to benefit McClaren as you so vehemently believe (without any substantial evidence I may add)?[/QUOTE]
Actually, I'm a McLaren and Williams fan :)
| StuBeck | 07-31-2007 12:08 PM |
Read the letter from Mosley to Ferrari on autosport. It explains what I've been saying. It wasn't put into the car, at all, it was just a disgruntled employee. I don't understand how the design of the cars would not be similar, but the McLaren could have gotten help from the designs. There would have to be similarities if he used it.
| Hotrodguru | 07-31-2007 12:30 PM |
Well to some point all the designs are very similar. Ahh WHO CARES!! It's been a good year of racing in F1 for a change.
New drivers, various winners, interteam rivalry, small outfits beating out their big brothers, passing on track, controversy, etc..
Only sucky thing is the loss of Speed. Ohh well...
New drivers, various winners, interteam rivalry, small outfits beating out their big brothers, passing on track, controversy, etc..
Only sucky thing is the loss of Speed. Ohh well...
| Indocti Discant | 07-31-2007 12:34 PM |
so Mosley agreed to send the case back to the appeals court?
| StuBeck | 07-31-2007 12:42 PM |
[QUOTE=Hotrodguru;18892086]Well to some point all the designs are very similar. Ahh WHO CARES!! It's been a good year of racing in F1 for a change.
New drivers, various winners, interteam rivalry, small outfits beating out their big brothers, passing on track, controversy, etc..
Only sucky thing is the loss of Speed. Ohh well...[/QUOTE]
:lol:
[QUOTE=owace;18892129]so Mosley agreed to send the case back to the appeals court?[/QUOTE]
Yes
New drivers, various winners, interteam rivalry, small outfits beating out their big brothers, passing on track, controversy, etc..
Only sucky thing is the loss of Speed. Ohh well...[/QUOTE]
:lol:
[QUOTE=owace;18892129]so Mosley agreed to send the case back to the appeals court?[/QUOTE]
Yes
| artkevin | 08-01-2007 03:55 PM |
[B]McLaren hit out at Ferrari[/B]
By Biranit Goren Wednesday, August 1st 2007, 18:22 GMT
McLaren have publicly accused Ferrari of winning the Australian Grand Prix earlier this year with an illegal car and claim the Italian team are now deliberately providing the media with misleading information aimed at tarnishing McLaren's reputation.
For the first time since the spying scandal began last month, McLaren have disclosed in public their detailed version of the events in the affair that is currently being contested between the Woking-based outfit and their rivals Ferrari.
In a lengthy letter made public by McLaren and addressed to the president of the Italian motorsport authority ACI-CSAI Luigi Macaluso, McLaren CEO Ron Dennis heavily criticises Ferrari for spreading what he says is misleading information that is aimed at damaging McLaren's reputation.
"McLaren's reputation has been unfairly sullied by incorrect press reports from Italy and grossly misleading statements from Ferrari," Dennis writes.
"This is a fantastic World Championship and it would be a tragedy if one of the best World Championships in years was derailed by the acts of one Ferrari and one McLaren employee acting for their own purposes wholly unconnected with Ferrari or McLaren."
Dennis defends his team's behaviour in saying McLaren's only knowledge of information leaked by ex-Ferrari engineer Nigel Stepney was regarding the floor device on the Ferrari car at the Australian Grand Prix.
Dennis depends Stepney's actions as 'whistle-blowing' and says such behaviour should be encouraged in Formula One, not stopped, and accuses Ferrari of winning the Australian Grand Prix with an illegal car.
"Were it not for Mr Stepney drawing this illegal device to the attention of McLaren ... there is every reason to suppose that Ferrari would have continued to race with an illegal car," Dennis writes.
"It is in the interests of F1 that whistle-blowing is encouraged and not discouraged. If team members think that their identity will be revealed they will not whistle-blow."
But Dennis is equally adamant that his team has no knowledge of the 780-page dossier that Stepney had given Coughlan at the end of April this year, and the McLaren CEO says Coughlan had acted against the explicit instructions of his supervisors and without involving or benefiting the McLaren team.
"Let me make it clear," Dennis writes, "McLaren did know about the whistle blowing matters in March 2007 - indeed it reported these matters to the FIA.
"However that has nothing to do with what Mr Coughlan did on and after 28 April 2007. McLaren management and staff had no knowledge whatsoever about that."
Below is the full letter from Dennis to Macaluso:
1 August 2007
Dear Mr Macaluso,
ARTICLE 151C OF THE INTERNATIONAL SPORTING CODE
I refer to your letter dated 30 July 2007 to Mr Mosley of the FIA and to Mr Mosley's reply to you dated 31 July 2007, both of which were published on the FIA website yesterday without McLaren being given any opportunity at all to comment on this exchange of letters.
In your letter to the FIA you state that you "find it quite difficult to justify how a team has not been penalised while it has been found in breach of clause 151c of the International Sporting Code."
As it is apparent from your letter that you have only heard Ferrari's version of events, I would like to set the record straight and to explain to you in some detail why it was entirely fair that McLaren was not penalised and why it would in fact also have been fair if McLaren had not been found to be in breach of Article 151c at all.
Since this matter first came to light, McLaren has been completely open with Ferrari and the FIA and has cooperated to the fullest extent in the investigation of the facts.
At the hearing before the World Motor Sport Council, I and senior members of McLaren's staff gave evidence and were cross-examined by the Council and by Ferrari. We presented to the Council and to Ferrari all of McLaren's relevant documentary records for consideration. All of this evidence was fully tested at the hearing.
Our evidence makes it completely clear that the true facts of this matter are as follows:
"Whistleblowing" in March 2007
In March 2007, Mr Stepney of Ferrari contacted Mr Coughlan and informed him about two aspects of the Ferrari car which he regarded being in breach of FIA regulations. Specifically, he told Mr Coughlan about a floor attachment mechanism and a rear wing separator, both of which could be and were seen on the Ferrari car prior to the Australian Grand Prix.
Mr Coughlan immediately told McLaren's senior management about Mr Stepney's allegations. McLaren took steps to confirm whether the allegations were true, and we concluded that they were. Accordingly we reported these two matters to the FIA, adopting the customary practice of asking the FIA Technical Department for their opinion.
As regards the rear wing separator, the FIA subsequently ruled that this was compliant with the Technical Regulations. However the FIA ruled that this floor device was illegal. You will appreciate the significance of this.
As far as we are aware, Ferrari ran their cars with this illegal device at the Australian Grand Prix, which they won. In the interests of the sport, McLaren chose not to protest the result of the Australian Grand Prix even though it seems clear that Ferrari had an illegal competitive advantage.
Ferrari only withdrew the floor device after it was confirmed to be illegal by the FIA. Were it not for Mr Stepney drawing this illegal device to the attention of McLaren, and McLaren drawing it to the attention of the FIA, there is every reason to suppose that Ferrari would have continued to race with an illegal car.
In the press, Ferrari have described the information which Mr Stepney provided to Mr Coughlan in March 2007 as being Ferrari's "confidential information". This is completely misleading. There is nothing confidential about the rear wing separator, which is immediately visible on the exterior of the car.
As regards the floor device, Mr Stepney revealed that Ferrari was proposing to use an illegal device at the Australian Grand Prix and no doubt for the rest of the season. He acted properly and in the interests of the sport in "blowing the whistle" about this. No team can expect their employees to keep quiet if they suspect - correctly in this case - that their employers are breaching the rules of the sport.
Ferrari have also complained in the press that McLaren and I in particular should have disclosed to Ferrari that it was Mr Stepney who blew the whistle on their illegal floor device. They also criticise me for entering a gentlemen's agreement in April 2007 about how to conduct technical complaints without revealing that it was Mr Stepney who made the disclosures in March.
For reasons which must be obvious to anyone fair minded, I reject these criticisms absolutely. I did not think it correct to disclose the name of the whistle-blower to Ferrari as it is not in the interests of Formula 1 for members of teams to feel that they cannot disclose instances of illegal activity without risking their name being disclosed to their employer. It is in the interests of Formula 1 that whistle-blowing is encouraged and not discouraged. If team members think that their identity will be revealed they will not whistle-blow.
What McLaren did do was to take steps immediately after learning of the contact between Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan in March 2007 to ensure that Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan ceased having any contact.
Whilst we saw nothing wrong with Mr Stepney whistle-blowing on Ferrari's illegal activities, we felt that it was not helpful for him to choose Mr Coughlan to blow the whistle to. We did not feel comfortable with a disgruntled Mr Stepney being in contact with Mr Coughlan. For this reason in March 2007, immediately after the Australian Grand Prix, Mr Coughlan was instructed by his superior Mr Neale to cease contact with Mr Stepney.
In summary, faced with clear information that Ferrari was proposing to use an illegal device, McLaren acted entirely properly, indeed we acted with considerable restraint. If any criticism is to be made, then I suggest that you should reflect carefully on the conduct of your licence holder, Ferrari, which appears to have won the Australian Grand Prix by racing with an illegal device.
The "Ferrari Documents"
I turn now to the events which occurred later in the year between Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan and in particular to the provision of a "dossier" of Ferrari Documents by Mr Stepney to Mr Coughlan at a meeting in Barcelona on Saturday 28 April 2007.
As I will explain, these events are quite separate from Mr Stepney's whistle blowing in March 2007, because during this period Mr Coughlan was acting secretly, in breach of his contract with McLaren, and for his own private purposes, quite conceivably as part of a scheme to leave McLaren and join another team together with Mr Stepney.
The background to the meeting on Saturday 28 April 2007 is that in early April 2007, Mr Coughlan told Mr Neale that despite his best efforts to cut off contact, Mr Stepney continued to contact him to express grievances about his lot with Ferrari. Mr Neale arranged for the installation of a "firewall" on McLaren's computer system to stop emails from Mr Stepney.
In addition to this Mr Coughlan said to Mr Neale that the only way he thought that this would stop is if Mr Coughlan spoke to Mr Stepney face to face and told him to stop trying to contact him. Mr Neale agreed that he could do this outside working hours.
On Saturday 28th April 2007, Mr Coughlan went to Barcelona and met Mr Stepney. Only Mr Coughlan and Mr Stepney know what truly happened at that meeting. So far as McLaren was concerned, however, when Mr Coughlan returned to work, he told Mr Neale that his meeting with Mr Stepney had achieved its objective and he believed that Mr Stepney would not contact him again.
After this, no-one at McLaren heard anything more about contact between Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan until 3 July 2007. Everyone at McLaren assumed that the issue of Mr Stepney contacting Mr Coughlan to express grievances had been resolved.
On 3 July 2007, Ferrari executed a search order at Mr Coughlan's home and seized two CDs containing Ferrari Documents. I emphasise that these documents were found at Mr Coughlan's home. No Ferrari Documents were found at McLaren's offices.
As is now in the public domain, Mr Coughlan has admitted that Mr Stepney gave him a dossier of Ferrari Documents in Barcelona which he took for his own private reasons, he says "engineering curiosity".
He kept these Documents at his home, and later with the assistance of his wife copied onto two CDs at a shop near their home, before shredding the originals using a home shredder and burning them in his back garden. Mr Coughlan says that he made no use of the Documents at work and that no one else at McLaren knew that he had taken the Documents.
Since Ferrari discovered that Mr Coughlan had the Ferrari Documents at his home, it has gone to extraordinary lengths to try to maximise the damage to McLaren, no doubt hoping to gain some advantage for the World Championship.
By Biranit Goren Wednesday, August 1st 2007, 18:22 GMT
McLaren have publicly accused Ferrari of winning the Australian Grand Prix earlier this year with an illegal car and claim the Italian team are now deliberately providing the media with misleading information aimed at tarnishing McLaren's reputation.
For the first time since the spying scandal began last month, McLaren have disclosed in public their detailed version of the events in the affair that is currently being contested between the Woking-based outfit and their rivals Ferrari.
In a lengthy letter made public by McLaren and addressed to the president of the Italian motorsport authority ACI-CSAI Luigi Macaluso, McLaren CEO Ron Dennis heavily criticises Ferrari for spreading what he says is misleading information that is aimed at damaging McLaren's reputation.
"McLaren's reputation has been unfairly sullied by incorrect press reports from Italy and grossly misleading statements from Ferrari," Dennis writes.
"This is a fantastic World Championship and it would be a tragedy if one of the best World Championships in years was derailed by the acts of one Ferrari and one McLaren employee acting for their own purposes wholly unconnected with Ferrari or McLaren."
Dennis defends his team's behaviour in saying McLaren's only knowledge of information leaked by ex-Ferrari engineer Nigel Stepney was regarding the floor device on the Ferrari car at the Australian Grand Prix.
Dennis depends Stepney's actions as 'whistle-blowing' and says such behaviour should be encouraged in Formula One, not stopped, and accuses Ferrari of winning the Australian Grand Prix with an illegal car.
"Were it not for Mr Stepney drawing this illegal device to the attention of McLaren ... there is every reason to suppose that Ferrari would have continued to race with an illegal car," Dennis writes.
"It is in the interests of F1 that whistle-blowing is encouraged and not discouraged. If team members think that their identity will be revealed they will not whistle-blow."
But Dennis is equally adamant that his team has no knowledge of the 780-page dossier that Stepney had given Coughlan at the end of April this year, and the McLaren CEO says Coughlan had acted against the explicit instructions of his supervisors and without involving or benefiting the McLaren team.
"Let me make it clear," Dennis writes, "McLaren did know about the whistle blowing matters in March 2007 - indeed it reported these matters to the FIA.
"However that has nothing to do with what Mr Coughlan did on and after 28 April 2007. McLaren management and staff had no knowledge whatsoever about that."
Below is the full letter from Dennis to Macaluso:
1 August 2007
Dear Mr Macaluso,
ARTICLE 151C OF THE INTERNATIONAL SPORTING CODE
I refer to your letter dated 30 July 2007 to Mr Mosley of the FIA and to Mr Mosley's reply to you dated 31 July 2007, both of which were published on the FIA website yesterday without McLaren being given any opportunity at all to comment on this exchange of letters.
In your letter to the FIA you state that you "find it quite difficult to justify how a team has not been penalised while it has been found in breach of clause 151c of the International Sporting Code."
As it is apparent from your letter that you have only heard Ferrari's version of events, I would like to set the record straight and to explain to you in some detail why it was entirely fair that McLaren was not penalised and why it would in fact also have been fair if McLaren had not been found to be in breach of Article 151c at all.
Since this matter first came to light, McLaren has been completely open with Ferrari and the FIA and has cooperated to the fullest extent in the investigation of the facts.
At the hearing before the World Motor Sport Council, I and senior members of McLaren's staff gave evidence and were cross-examined by the Council and by Ferrari. We presented to the Council and to Ferrari all of McLaren's relevant documentary records for consideration. All of this evidence was fully tested at the hearing.
Our evidence makes it completely clear that the true facts of this matter are as follows:
"Whistleblowing" in March 2007
In March 2007, Mr Stepney of Ferrari contacted Mr Coughlan and informed him about two aspects of the Ferrari car which he regarded being in breach of FIA regulations. Specifically, he told Mr Coughlan about a floor attachment mechanism and a rear wing separator, both of which could be and were seen on the Ferrari car prior to the Australian Grand Prix.
Mr Coughlan immediately told McLaren's senior management about Mr Stepney's allegations. McLaren took steps to confirm whether the allegations were true, and we concluded that they were. Accordingly we reported these two matters to the FIA, adopting the customary practice of asking the FIA Technical Department for their opinion.
As regards the rear wing separator, the FIA subsequently ruled that this was compliant with the Technical Regulations. However the FIA ruled that this floor device was illegal. You will appreciate the significance of this.
As far as we are aware, Ferrari ran their cars with this illegal device at the Australian Grand Prix, which they won. In the interests of the sport, McLaren chose not to protest the result of the Australian Grand Prix even though it seems clear that Ferrari had an illegal competitive advantage.
Ferrari only withdrew the floor device after it was confirmed to be illegal by the FIA. Were it not for Mr Stepney drawing this illegal device to the attention of McLaren, and McLaren drawing it to the attention of the FIA, there is every reason to suppose that Ferrari would have continued to race with an illegal car.
In the press, Ferrari have described the information which Mr Stepney provided to Mr Coughlan in March 2007 as being Ferrari's "confidential information". This is completely misleading. There is nothing confidential about the rear wing separator, which is immediately visible on the exterior of the car.
As regards the floor device, Mr Stepney revealed that Ferrari was proposing to use an illegal device at the Australian Grand Prix and no doubt for the rest of the season. He acted properly and in the interests of the sport in "blowing the whistle" about this. No team can expect their employees to keep quiet if they suspect - correctly in this case - that their employers are breaching the rules of the sport.
Ferrari have also complained in the press that McLaren and I in particular should have disclosed to Ferrari that it was Mr Stepney who blew the whistle on their illegal floor device. They also criticise me for entering a gentlemen's agreement in April 2007 about how to conduct technical complaints without revealing that it was Mr Stepney who made the disclosures in March.
For reasons which must be obvious to anyone fair minded, I reject these criticisms absolutely. I did not think it correct to disclose the name of the whistle-blower to Ferrari as it is not in the interests of Formula 1 for members of teams to feel that they cannot disclose instances of illegal activity without risking their name being disclosed to their employer. It is in the interests of Formula 1 that whistle-blowing is encouraged and not discouraged. If team members think that their identity will be revealed they will not whistle-blow.
What McLaren did do was to take steps immediately after learning of the contact between Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan in March 2007 to ensure that Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan ceased having any contact.
Whilst we saw nothing wrong with Mr Stepney whistle-blowing on Ferrari's illegal activities, we felt that it was not helpful for him to choose Mr Coughlan to blow the whistle to. We did not feel comfortable with a disgruntled Mr Stepney being in contact with Mr Coughlan. For this reason in March 2007, immediately after the Australian Grand Prix, Mr Coughlan was instructed by his superior Mr Neale to cease contact with Mr Stepney.
In summary, faced with clear information that Ferrari was proposing to use an illegal device, McLaren acted entirely properly, indeed we acted with considerable restraint. If any criticism is to be made, then I suggest that you should reflect carefully on the conduct of your licence holder, Ferrari, which appears to have won the Australian Grand Prix by racing with an illegal device.
The "Ferrari Documents"
I turn now to the events which occurred later in the year between Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan and in particular to the provision of a "dossier" of Ferrari Documents by Mr Stepney to Mr Coughlan at a meeting in Barcelona on Saturday 28 April 2007.
As I will explain, these events are quite separate from Mr Stepney's whistle blowing in March 2007, because during this period Mr Coughlan was acting secretly, in breach of his contract with McLaren, and for his own private purposes, quite conceivably as part of a scheme to leave McLaren and join another team together with Mr Stepney.
The background to the meeting on Saturday 28 April 2007 is that in early April 2007, Mr Coughlan told Mr Neale that despite his best efforts to cut off contact, Mr Stepney continued to contact him to express grievances about his lot with Ferrari. Mr Neale arranged for the installation of a "firewall" on McLaren's computer system to stop emails from Mr Stepney.
In addition to this Mr Coughlan said to Mr Neale that the only way he thought that this would stop is if Mr Coughlan spoke to Mr Stepney face to face and told him to stop trying to contact him. Mr Neale agreed that he could do this outside working hours.
On Saturday 28th April 2007, Mr Coughlan went to Barcelona and met Mr Stepney. Only Mr Coughlan and Mr Stepney know what truly happened at that meeting. So far as McLaren was concerned, however, when Mr Coughlan returned to work, he told Mr Neale that his meeting with Mr Stepney had achieved its objective and he believed that Mr Stepney would not contact him again.
After this, no-one at McLaren heard anything more about contact between Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan until 3 July 2007. Everyone at McLaren assumed that the issue of Mr Stepney contacting Mr Coughlan to express grievances had been resolved.
On 3 July 2007, Ferrari executed a search order at Mr Coughlan's home and seized two CDs containing Ferrari Documents. I emphasise that these documents were found at Mr Coughlan's home. No Ferrari Documents were found at McLaren's offices.
As is now in the public domain, Mr Coughlan has admitted that Mr Stepney gave him a dossier of Ferrari Documents in Barcelona which he took for his own private reasons, he says "engineering curiosity".
He kept these Documents at his home, and later with the assistance of his wife copied onto two CDs at a shop near their home, before shredding the originals using a home shredder and burning them in his back garden. Mr Coughlan says that he made no use of the Documents at work and that no one else at McLaren knew that he had taken the Documents.
Since Ferrari discovered that Mr Coughlan had the Ferrari Documents at his home, it has gone to extraordinary lengths to try to maximise the damage to McLaren, no doubt hoping to gain some advantage for the World Championship.
| artkevin | 08-01-2007 03:55 PM |
cont'd
In particular, Ferrari has alleged, without any justification, that other McLaren staff were aware of what Mr Coughlan had done and that McLaren made some use of the Documents. Ferrari has no evidence whatsoever for these offensive and false allegations and presented no such evidence to the World Motor Sports Council. The Council quite correctly rejected these allegations.
As regards Ferrari's allegation that other McLaren staff were aware of what Mr Coughlan had done, in its statements to the press, Ferrari has tried to confuse the March 2007 whistle-blowing by Mr Stepney (which McLaren did know about) with the events on and following 28 April 2007 (which Mr Coughlan kept completely secret).
Let me make it clear: McLaren did know about the whistle blowing matters in March 2007 - indeed it reported these matters to the FIA. However that has nothing to do with what Mr Coughlan did on and after 28 April 2007. McLaren management and staff had no knowledge whatsoever about that.
In addition to this, Ferrari has tried to latch on to two instances where Mr Coughlan has stated that he showed single pages which he says were from the Ferrari Documents to two other McLaren staff: Mr Taylor (another McLaren engineer who had previously worked with Mr Coughlan when they were both at Ferrari) and Mr Neale (Mr Coughlan's superior).
The Council has fully investigated these instances, and concluded quite rightly that neither Mr Taylor nor Mr Neale were aware that the single pages they were shown were Ferrari confidential information, still less that they were part of a dossier of several hundred pages which Mr Coughlan had secretly received and kept at his house.
So far as Mr Taylor is concerned, Mr Coughlan briefly showed him a single diagram. Mr Taylor had no idea whether this was an old or new diagram and had no idea it came from Mr Stepney. He was not given a copy and made no use of the diagram. He paid no attention to the incident.
As for Mr Neale, he had an informal meeting at a restaurant on 25 May 2007 to discuss a request Mr Coughlan had made for an early release from his contract of employment with McLaren.
Towards the end of this Mr Coughlan began to show Mr Neale two images, but Mr Neale stated that he was not interested in seeing them. Mr Neale has stated that these images did not appear to have any connection with Ferrari or any other team. When asked at the hearing about this, Mr Neale said that although this was only speculation on his part, he thought that Mr Coughlan was about to refer to the images to seek resources from him for digital mock up equipment.
In short these instances did not alert Mr Taylor or Mr Neale that Mr Coughlan had taken possession of the Ferrari Documents. Neither they or any other member of McLaren staff had any idea what Mr Coughlan had done.
I turn then to Ferrari's allegation that McLaren somehow made use of the Ferrari Documents which Mr Coughlan kept secretly at his home.
Mr Coughlan himself is categoric that he made no use of the Ferrari documents in the McLaren car. Mr Coughlan's job related to the management of drawing production by the design staff and their sign off prior to issue to our production facilities. He did not have responsibility for the performance enhancement of the car.
This function lies with the Chief Engineers and R&D Team who report to the Engineering Director, Patrick Lowe, who provided detailed evidence to the World Motor Sport Council. An important part of Mr Coughlan's job was, however, monitoring the testing and reliability of the car throughout the year.
In addition to this functional analysis, McLaren had conducted a very thorough physical and electronic search (conducted by Kroll) and a thorough engineering study conducted by Patrick Lowe to see if any of the Ferrari Documents were or are at McLaren or if any use of such documents has actually been made in relation to the McLaren car.
This investigation has confirmed that none of the Ferrari Documents were at McLaren as opposed to at Mr Coughlan's home and that there is no possibility that any of the information in those Documents could have been used on any development on the McLaren car.
At the hearing, McLaren demonstrated clearly to the satisfaction of the World Motor Sport Council that no use whatsoever has been made of any of the contents of the Ferrari documents in the McLaren car.
Accordingly, Ferrari's continued allegations in the press that McLaren has made use of the Ferrari Documents are entirely false.
I deal lastly with Mr Coughlan's true motives for taking and keeping the Ferrari Documents. Although McLaren cannot know for sure what Mr Coughlan's (and Mr Stepney's) motives were, what McLaren do know is that only a few days after the 28th April Mr Stepney contacted Honda (on 2 May) and commenced a process whereby Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan together offered their services to join Honda. McLaren believes that it is highly likely that Mr Stepney provided the Ferrari Documents to Mr Coughlan as part of a joint scheme to seek employment at another team.
These are the facts. Although McLaren does not know for sure what Mr Stepney's purpose was in passing the Ferrari Documents to Mr Coughlan and what Mr Coughlan's purpose was in receiving them, McLaren does know for sure that Mr Coughlan acted secretly and that the Ferrari Documents were not used in the McLaren car but that Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan were looking to leaving Ferrari and McLaren to join another team.
It is fact that Mr Coughlan never passed the Ferrari documents to anyone else at McLaren or told anyone at McLaren that he had these documents. It is fact that no-one at McLaren knew that Mr Coughlan had received any documents from Mr Stepney on the 28th April. It is fact that Mr Coughlan had been told by his superior Mr Neale to stop all contact with Mr Stepney straight after the Australian Grand Prix.
Other matters
Your letter also suggests that the outcome might have been different if the Council had given Ferrari further opportunities to be heard beyond those offered. I again ask you to look at the real facts, which are that Ferrari fully participated in the hearing before the Council.
First, Ferrari submitted a lengthy, albeit grossly misleading, memorandum dated 16th July 2007 along with supporting documents which together totalled 118 pages.
Ferrari did not send McLaren the memorandum. The memorandum was circulated to the Council on the 20 July. McLaren did not see it until two days before the hearing and it was only then that we were able to correct its grossly inaccurate contents.
In the meantime, the misleading Ferrari memorandum or sections of it appear to have been leaked to the Italian press as much of the Italian press reports echo elements of that memorandum.
In addition to this Ferrari, who were represented by lawyers, were given several opportunities by the FIA President to ask questions and make submissions throughout the hearing. Mr Todt also gave evidence.
It was clear that the FIA President afforded Ferrari every opportunity to be heard in order to ensure that all relevant matters were heard by the WMSC. Indeed, at the very end of the proceeding, Ferrari intervened with a request to make further closing comments. Ferrari's request was permitted and their lawyer proceeded to make further detailed closing comments at some length.
I therefore simply do not understand what basis there is for Ferrari's claim that it was denied an opportunity to put its case. It put its case both in writing and orally.
I respectfully ask you and the ACI-CSAI to look at the hard facts of this matter in an objective and fair manner rather than being influenced by selective and misleading statements put out with the object of damaging McLaren.
The reason McLaren was not penalised is that the World Motor Sport Council rightly concluded that it should not be blamed for Mr Coughlan's actions. It based its decision on solid facts and not false innuendo. McLaren's reputation has been unfairly sullied by incorrect press reports from Italy and grossly misleading statements from Ferrari.
This is a fantastic World Championship and it would be a tragedy if one of the best World Championships in years was derailed by the acts of one Ferrari and one McLaren employee acting for their own purposes wholly unconnected with Ferrari or McLaren.
We believe that the Ferrari press releases, the leaks to the Italian press and recent events have been damaging to Formula 1 as well as McLaren. The World Championship should be contested on the track not in Courts or in the press.
We will naturally present our case before the FIA Court of Appeal as we strongly believe McLaren has done nothing wrong. It is our belief that justice will prevail and that McLaren will not be penalised.
Yours sincerely,
Ron Dennis CBE
Group Chairman and CEO
Copy:
Max Mosley, President FIA
Jean Todt, CEO Ferrari SpA
In particular, Ferrari has alleged, without any justification, that other McLaren staff were aware of what Mr Coughlan had done and that McLaren made some use of the Documents. Ferrari has no evidence whatsoever for these offensive and false allegations and presented no such evidence to the World Motor Sports Council. The Council quite correctly rejected these allegations.
As regards Ferrari's allegation that other McLaren staff were aware of what Mr Coughlan had done, in its statements to the press, Ferrari has tried to confuse the March 2007 whistle-blowing by Mr Stepney (which McLaren did know about) with the events on and following 28 April 2007 (which Mr Coughlan kept completely secret).
Let me make it clear: McLaren did know about the whistle blowing matters in March 2007 - indeed it reported these matters to the FIA. However that has nothing to do with what Mr Coughlan did on and after 28 April 2007. McLaren management and staff had no knowledge whatsoever about that.
In addition to this, Ferrari has tried to latch on to two instances where Mr Coughlan has stated that he showed single pages which he says were from the Ferrari Documents to two other McLaren staff: Mr Taylor (another McLaren engineer who had previously worked with Mr Coughlan when they were both at Ferrari) and Mr Neale (Mr Coughlan's superior).
The Council has fully investigated these instances, and concluded quite rightly that neither Mr Taylor nor Mr Neale were aware that the single pages they were shown were Ferrari confidential information, still less that they were part of a dossier of several hundred pages which Mr Coughlan had secretly received and kept at his house.
So far as Mr Taylor is concerned, Mr Coughlan briefly showed him a single diagram. Mr Taylor had no idea whether this was an old or new diagram and had no idea it came from Mr Stepney. He was not given a copy and made no use of the diagram. He paid no attention to the incident.
As for Mr Neale, he had an informal meeting at a restaurant on 25 May 2007 to discuss a request Mr Coughlan had made for an early release from his contract of employment with McLaren.
Towards the end of this Mr Coughlan began to show Mr Neale two images, but Mr Neale stated that he was not interested in seeing them. Mr Neale has stated that these images did not appear to have any connection with Ferrari or any other team. When asked at the hearing about this, Mr Neale said that although this was only speculation on his part, he thought that Mr Coughlan was about to refer to the images to seek resources from him for digital mock up equipment.
In short these instances did not alert Mr Taylor or Mr Neale that Mr Coughlan had taken possession of the Ferrari Documents. Neither they or any other member of McLaren staff had any idea what Mr Coughlan had done.
I turn then to Ferrari's allegation that McLaren somehow made use of the Ferrari Documents which Mr Coughlan kept secretly at his home.
Mr Coughlan himself is categoric that he made no use of the Ferrari documents in the McLaren car. Mr Coughlan's job related to the management of drawing production by the design staff and their sign off prior to issue to our production facilities. He did not have responsibility for the performance enhancement of the car.
This function lies with the Chief Engineers and R&D Team who report to the Engineering Director, Patrick Lowe, who provided detailed evidence to the World Motor Sport Council. An important part of Mr Coughlan's job was, however, monitoring the testing and reliability of the car throughout the year.
In addition to this functional analysis, McLaren had conducted a very thorough physical and electronic search (conducted by Kroll) and a thorough engineering study conducted by Patrick Lowe to see if any of the Ferrari Documents were or are at McLaren or if any use of such documents has actually been made in relation to the McLaren car.
This investigation has confirmed that none of the Ferrari Documents were at McLaren as opposed to at Mr Coughlan's home and that there is no possibility that any of the information in those Documents could have been used on any development on the McLaren car.
At the hearing, McLaren demonstrated clearly to the satisfaction of the World Motor Sport Council that no use whatsoever has been made of any of the contents of the Ferrari documents in the McLaren car.
Accordingly, Ferrari's continued allegations in the press that McLaren has made use of the Ferrari Documents are entirely false.
I deal lastly with Mr Coughlan's true motives for taking and keeping the Ferrari Documents. Although McLaren cannot know for sure what Mr Coughlan's (and Mr Stepney's) motives were, what McLaren do know is that only a few days after the 28th April Mr Stepney contacted Honda (on 2 May) and commenced a process whereby Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan together offered their services to join Honda. McLaren believes that it is highly likely that Mr Stepney provided the Ferrari Documents to Mr Coughlan as part of a joint scheme to seek employment at another team.
These are the facts. Although McLaren does not know for sure what Mr Stepney's purpose was in passing the Ferrari Documents to Mr Coughlan and what Mr Coughlan's purpose was in receiving them, McLaren does know for sure that Mr Coughlan acted secretly and that the Ferrari Documents were not used in the McLaren car but that Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan were looking to leaving Ferrari and McLaren to join another team.
It is fact that Mr Coughlan never passed the Ferrari documents to anyone else at McLaren or told anyone at McLaren that he had these documents. It is fact that no-one at McLaren knew that Mr Coughlan had received any documents from Mr Stepney on the 28th April. It is fact that Mr Coughlan had been told by his superior Mr Neale to stop all contact with Mr Stepney straight after the Australian Grand Prix.
Other matters
Your letter also suggests that the outcome might have been different if the Council had given Ferrari further opportunities to be heard beyond those offered. I again ask you to look at the real facts, which are that Ferrari fully participated in the hearing before the Council.
First, Ferrari submitted a lengthy, albeit grossly misleading, memorandum dated 16th July 2007 along with supporting documents which together totalled 118 pages.
Ferrari did not send McLaren the memorandum. The memorandum was circulated to the Council on the 20 July. McLaren did not see it until two days before the hearing and it was only then that we were able to correct its grossly inaccurate contents.
In the meantime, the misleading Ferrari memorandum or sections of it appear to have been leaked to the Italian press as much of the Italian press reports echo elements of that memorandum.
In addition to this Ferrari, who were represented by lawyers, were given several opportunities by the FIA President to ask questions and make submissions throughout the hearing. Mr Todt also gave evidence.
It was clear that the FIA President afforded Ferrari every opportunity to be heard in order to ensure that all relevant matters were heard by the WMSC. Indeed, at the very end of the proceeding, Ferrari intervened with a request to make further closing comments. Ferrari's request was permitted and their lawyer proceeded to make further detailed closing comments at some length.
I therefore simply do not understand what basis there is for Ferrari's claim that it was denied an opportunity to put its case. It put its case both in writing and orally.
I respectfully ask you and the ACI-CSAI to look at the hard facts of this matter in an objective and fair manner rather than being influenced by selective and misleading statements put out with the object of damaging McLaren.
The reason McLaren was not penalised is that the World Motor Sport Council rightly concluded that it should not be blamed for Mr Coughlan's actions. It based its decision on solid facts and not false innuendo. McLaren's reputation has been unfairly sullied by incorrect press reports from Italy and grossly misleading statements from Ferrari.
This is a fantastic World Championship and it would be a tragedy if one of the best World Championships in years was derailed by the acts of one Ferrari and one McLaren employee acting for their own purposes wholly unconnected with Ferrari or McLaren.
We believe that the Ferrari press releases, the leaks to the Italian press and recent events have been damaging to Formula 1 as well as McLaren. The World Championship should be contested on the track not in Courts or in the press.
We will naturally present our case before the FIA Court of Appeal as we strongly believe McLaren has done nothing wrong. It is our belief that justice will prevail and that McLaren will not be penalised.
Yours sincerely,
Ron Dennis CBE
Group Chairman and CEO
Copy:
Max Mosley, President FIA
Jean Todt, CEO Ferrari SpA
| StuBeck | 08-01-2007 04:38 PM |
Long read, but good. It seems to fulfill my idea that Ferrari is being whiny.
| BillT | 08-02-2007 09:33 AM |
Since when do 'whistleblowers' inform their competitors?
| StuBeck | 08-02-2007 12:02 PM |
Since forever, at least in F1. The FIA can't do anything about issues unless another team brings it up.
| artkevin | 08-02-2007 01:06 PM |
I think BillT's point is that whistle blowers should tell the governing body, not a rival team. There should be no personal "gain" from whistle blowing.
| BillT | 08-02-2007 01:27 PM |
[QUOTE=artkevin;18916975]I think BillT's point is that whistle blowers should tell the governing body, not a rival team. There should be no personal "gain" from whistle blowing.[/QUOTE]
Exactly! Telling a rival team is pretty much industrial espionage not 'whistleblowing'. Had Stepney truely been on the up and up, he would have provided documents to the FIA and let them figure out what to do with it. Don't you think that if the situation was reversed, that good 'ol saint Ron would be doing the same thing that Ferrari is doing right now?
Exactly! Telling a rival team is pretty much industrial espionage not 'whistleblowing'. Had Stepney truely been on the up and up, he would have provided documents to the FIA and let them figure out what to do with it. Don't you think that if the situation was reversed, that good 'ol saint Ron would be doing the same thing that Ferrari is doing right now?
| StuBeck | 08-02-2007 01:27 PM |
I don't see how he gained anything by telling someone else. The reason he can't tell the FIA is that I don't believe you can anonymously tell the FIA anything, so people would get in trouble.
| StuBeck | 08-02-2007 01:30 PM |
[QUOTE=BillT;18917255]Exactly! Telling a rival team is pretty much industrial espionage not 'whistleblowing'. Had Stepney truely been on the up and up, he would have provided documents to the FIA and let them figure out what to do with it. Don't you think that if the situation was reversed, that good 'ol saint Ron would be doing the same thing that Ferrari is doing right now?[/QUOTE]
Its been going on this way forever. And there have been incidents in the past where things that McLaren had were proven illegal, and McLaren didn't do what Ferrari is.
Its been going on this way forever. And there have been incidents in the past where things that McLaren had were proven illegal, and McLaren didn't do what Ferrari is.
| bitterWRX | 08-02-2007 09:50 PM |
[QUOTE=artkevin;18916975]I think BillT's point is that whistle blowers should tell the governing body, not a rival team. There should be no personal "gain" from whistle blowing.[/QUOTE]
It's no surprise that Stepney became a disgruntled employee after his loyal services were overlooked by Ferrari. Is it that unbelievable that the personal gain was to see Ferrari lose the championship? On top of that, Coughlan and Stepney were allegedly planning to leave their respective teams anyway.
It's no surprise that Stepney became a disgruntled employee after his loyal services were overlooked by Ferrari. Is it that unbelievable that the personal gain was to see Ferrari lose the championship? On top of that, Coughlan and Stepney were allegedly planning to leave their respective teams anyway.
| KAX | 08-02-2007 10:27 PM |
obviously theres personal gain on the part of coughlan and stepney, otherwise they wouldnt do it. but thats not what they were talking about. there shouldnt be personal gain on the part of the team that blows the whistle, other then the ability to have a fair championship.
| StuBeck | 08-02-2007 11:19 PM |
How did they gain anything by doing it? Neither has a job right now. And the team who asks the FIA for clarification is going to gain something by finding out whether it is legal.
| BillT | 08-03-2007 08:02 AM |
I feel that unless he negotiates some kind of plea deal that implicates some bigger fish, Stepney might end up in I(talian)PMITA prison. He doesn't stand a chance in the Italian court system against Ferrari.
| KAX | 08-03-2007 02:48 PM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck;18924023]How did they gain anything by doing it? Neither has a job right now. [/quote]
in the end, they didnt. but there would have been personal gain if they got away with it, which according to you, happens alot.
[QUOTE=StuBeck;18924023]And the team who asks the FIA for clarification is going to gain something by finding out whether it is legal.[/QUOTE]
i already said that
in the end, they didnt. but there would have been personal gain if they got away with it, which according to you, happens alot.
[QUOTE=StuBeck;18924023]And the team who asks the FIA for clarification is going to gain something by finding out whether it is legal.[/QUOTE]
i already said that
| OnTheGas | 08-03-2007 03:18 PM |
Regarding the lack of penalty applied to McLaren: Macaluso's Response of Aug 2
�
�
[URL="http://www.csai.aci.it/csai/DettaglioNews.do?id=1344"]Macaluso, President of ACI-CSAI[/URL]
[quote]2 August 2007
Dear Mr Dennis,
Article 151c of the International Sporting Code
I refer to your letter of 1 August 2007.
It is apparent from your letter that there is a distinct difference between McLaren�s view of events and that of Ferrari. It therefore seems appropriate for the matter to be reviewed by the International Court of Appeal as decided by the FIA President, Mr. Mosley.
It is not my role nor would it be appropriate for me to answer your various points. It will be for the Court of Appeal to do so.
In any event, I would limit myself to stress that McLaren was found in breach of Article 151c of the International Sporting Code, but nevertheless escaped any penalty. As Mr Mosley indicated in his letter of 31 July 2007, it is important for the World Championship that the correct outcome is reached. It is clearly in the interest of the sport that the appropriate precedent for dealing with events such as these is set.
At the hearing of the World Motor Sport Council on 26 July 2007, Ferrari was legally represented but attended the meeting merely as an observer. It accordingly did not have sufficient opportunity to present to the Council or ask questions of key individuals involved in this matter in order to test their evidence. A hearing before the International Court of Appeal will allow Ferrari an opportunity to present its evidence and arguments in detail.
Yours sincerely
Luigi Macaluso
The President of ACI-CSAI[/quote]
[quote]2 August 2007
Dear Mr Dennis,
Article 151c of the International Sporting Code
I refer to your letter of 1 August 2007.
It is apparent from your letter that there is a distinct difference between McLaren�s view of events and that of Ferrari. It therefore seems appropriate for the matter to be reviewed by the International Court of Appeal as decided by the FIA President, Mr. Mosley.
It is not my role nor would it be appropriate for me to answer your various points. It will be for the Court of Appeal to do so.
In any event, I would limit myself to stress that McLaren was found in breach of Article 151c of the International Sporting Code, but nevertheless escaped any penalty. As Mr Mosley indicated in his letter of 31 July 2007, it is important for the World Championship that the correct outcome is reached. It is clearly in the interest of the sport that the appropriate precedent for dealing with events such as these is set.
At the hearing of the World Motor Sport Council on 26 July 2007, Ferrari was legally represented but attended the meeting merely as an observer. It accordingly did not have sufficient opportunity to present to the Council or ask questions of key individuals involved in this matter in order to test their evidence. A hearing before the International Court of Appeal will allow Ferrari an opportunity to present its evidence and arguments in detail.
Yours sincerely
Luigi Macaluso
The President of ACI-CSAI[/quote]
| OnTheGas | 08-03-2007 03:36 PM |
Briatore on lack of punishment for breach of code: FIA must set some clear rules!
�
�
Per [URL="http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61291"]Autosport[/URL], Flavio shared the following w/[URL="http://www.gazzetta.it/"]Gazzetta dello Sport[/URL] newspaper.[quote]We need to clear up this situation. McLaren could be excluded from the world championship.
If it really happened then people must be punished for two reasons. First because this way it won't happen again, so a mechanic, before passing certain information, will think 27 times about it.
And then because we can't be the judges and pay people inside a team to tell you what's illegal. This is a job for the federation, which must set some clear rules.[/quote]
If it really happened then people must be punished for two reasons. First because this way it won't happen again, so a mechanic, before passing certain information, will think 27 times about it.
And then because we can't be the judges and pay people inside a team to tell you what's illegal. This is a job for the federation, which must set some clear rules.[/quote]
| OnTheGas | 08-03-2007 04:08 PM |
Ferrari's Response that their Australia cars were illegal
�
�
In an article today by Biranit Goren on [URL="http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61295"]AutoSport.com[/URL], Ferrari responds to the following [URL="http://www.mclaren.com/latestnews/pdf/Letter%20from%20Ron%20Dennis%20to%20Luigi%20Macaluso.pdf"]statement by Ron Dennis[/URL].[quote][i]Ron Dennis[/i]
...As far as we are aware, Ferrari ran their cars with this illegal device at the Australian Grand Prix, which they won.
In the interests of the sport, McLaren chose not to protest the result of the Australian Grand Prix even though it seems clear that Ferrari had an illegal competitive advantage...[/quote]
Ferrari's response:
[quote]With regard to the points made by Vodafone McLaren Mercedes concerning the 2007 Australian Grand Prix in a letter to the President of the ACI-CSAI, Gino Macaluso on 1 August last, Ferrari wishes to state very strongly that its letter contains accusations that are both serious and false.
Contrary to the statement put forward by Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, Ferrari never illegally gained any advantage.
The two F2007 cars used in the Australian Grand Prix were deemed by the Stewards to be in conformity with the technical regulations, before, during and at the end of the event. If there had been any illegalities, they would have been disqualified.
In fact, what the FIA did next is commonplace. The FIA took the opportunity to issue a clarification on the interpretation of the regulation and then asked the teams concerned to make the necessary modifications.
There are actually numerous examples of this in both the recent and distant past which have also involved other teams.
At the next sitting of the FIA International Court of Appeal, Ferrari will fully explain its position on the entire matter.[/quote]
As an aside, the current stage of this saga reminds me of that scene from "Animal House" where Bluto yells, "FOOD FIGHT!" :D
...As far as we are aware, Ferrari ran their cars with this illegal device at the Australian Grand Prix, which they won.
In the interests of the sport, McLaren chose not to protest the result of the Australian Grand Prix even though it seems clear that Ferrari had an illegal competitive advantage...[/quote]
Ferrari's response:
[quote]With regard to the points made by Vodafone McLaren Mercedes concerning the 2007 Australian Grand Prix in a letter to the President of the ACI-CSAI, Gino Macaluso on 1 August last, Ferrari wishes to state very strongly that its letter contains accusations that are both serious and false.
Contrary to the statement put forward by Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, Ferrari never illegally gained any advantage.
The two F2007 cars used in the Australian Grand Prix were deemed by the Stewards to be in conformity with the technical regulations, before, during and at the end of the event. If there had been any illegalities, they would have been disqualified.
In fact, what the FIA did next is commonplace. The FIA took the opportunity to issue a clarification on the interpretation of the regulation and then asked the teams concerned to make the necessary modifications.
There are actually numerous examples of this in both the recent and distant past which have also involved other teams.
At the next sitting of the FIA International Court of Appeal, Ferrari will fully explain its position on the entire matter.[/quote]
As an aside, the current stage of this saga reminds me of that scene from "Animal House" where Bluto yells, "FOOD FIGHT!" :D
| rupertberr | 08-03-2007 04:16 PM |
I think everyone is missing the point. Coughlan and Stepney were planning to go to Honda so Honda should be stripped of all points they scored in the first six races of the season. :D
Coughlan and Stepney should be barred from F1 for a year or forced to work for Spyker.:D
Yea, this mud slinging is getting old.
Coughlan and Stepney should be barred from F1 for a year or forced to work for Spyker.:D
Yea, this mud slinging is getting old.
| OnTheGas | 08-04-2007 05:55 PM |
Ferrari's Response To WMSC's Lack of Penalty to McLaren For Breach of Sporting Code
�
�
I'm surprised no one here noticed this... Ferrari released this on Friday, July 27. This letter is a primary reason why Mosely sent this case to FIA's Court of Appeal, and why Italy's automobile federation president wrote Mosely criticising the lack of penalty applied to McLaren though are in breach of the sporting code, and why McLaren wrote their lengthy letter (thanks artkevin for posting that, btw).
[quote][b][i][URL="http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/39052/"]A reaction in the cold light of day[/URL][/i][/b]
During (Thursday�s) meeting, the McLaren bosses, with no exceptions, admitted that their chief designer had obtained since back in March, prior to the Australian GP, documents from Nigel Stepney,� Todt noted. �Some of this data was used to prepare a clarification request submitted to the FIA, aimed clearly at us, given that throughout the Melbourne weekend, the McLaren team principal and his closest colleagues made statements in which they threw doubt over �some cars�. Therefore, such information was in fact used to obtain an advantage over us: not through an improvement in their performance, but instead through limiting ours. It is important to underline that the information used to try and damage Ferrari through the FIA might be only a part of the information received by McLaren.
In an attempt to justify its actions, McLaren has tried to claim the immunity normally accorded to a whistleblower in some legal systems. But it should be noted that usually, an informant or whistleblower goes to the competent authority to denounce something, whereas in this case he went to Ferrari�s main rival who � and it is not us who say this but the FIA � took great care not to mention that the information was obtained in this way.
Let us move on. McLaren has confirmed that it has had to install a firewall to prevent further information from Stepney from reaching the team in the form of documents. Furthermore, (Mike) Coughlan (suspended McLaren designer) has been asked to tell the very same Stepney to stop sending him information.
It is a shame that before this, Coughlan asked (Stepney) for information on our brake balance system, then went to lunch with him in Spain, before calmly returning home with 780 pages of designs, diagrams, data and a whole lot more � as stated by the FIA release � with which to design, develop run and race a 2007 Ferrari Formula 1 car. As confirmed in that decision (Thursday), the violation was already there in the simple possession of the information, which in itself constitutes an enormous advantage in a sport like Formula 1.
In Ferrari�s opinion, it is like playing a hand of poker with a rival who already knows what cards you are holding.
It remains incomprehensible that apart from possession, one must also demonstrate the effective and visible use of this information on the McLaren car. Actually, this very same fact, on the basis of available information which the FIA used to find McLaren guilty, shows that the offense lies in the possession, without the need to prove anything else. The proof is there and this led to the FIA�s decision. Therefore I find it difficult to understand how the verdict makes sense.
Furthermore, I have to say that the proof of effective use requested by the FIA is impossible for Ferrari to furnish, because of course, Ferrari does not have access to the McLaren car.[/quote]
[quote][b][i][URL="http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/39052/"]A reaction in the cold light of day[/URL][/i][/b]
During (Thursday�s) meeting, the McLaren bosses, with no exceptions, admitted that their chief designer had obtained since back in March, prior to the Australian GP, documents from Nigel Stepney,� Todt noted. �Some of this data was used to prepare a clarification request submitted to the FIA, aimed clearly at us, given that throughout the Melbourne weekend, the McLaren team principal and his closest colleagues made statements in which they threw doubt over �some cars�. Therefore, such information was in fact used to obtain an advantage over us: not through an improvement in their performance, but instead through limiting ours. It is important to underline that the information used to try and damage Ferrari through the FIA might be only a part of the information received by McLaren.
In an attempt to justify its actions, McLaren has tried to claim the immunity normally accorded to a whistleblower in some legal systems. But it should be noted that usually, an informant or whistleblower goes to the competent authority to denounce something, whereas in this case he went to Ferrari�s main rival who � and it is not us who say this but the FIA � took great care not to mention that the information was obtained in this way.
Let us move on. McLaren has confirmed that it has had to install a firewall to prevent further information from Stepney from reaching the team in the form of documents. Furthermore, (Mike) Coughlan (suspended McLaren designer) has been asked to tell the very same Stepney to stop sending him information.
It is a shame that before this, Coughlan asked (Stepney) for information on our brake balance system, then went to lunch with him in Spain, before calmly returning home with 780 pages of designs, diagrams, data and a whole lot more � as stated by the FIA release � with which to design, develop run and race a 2007 Ferrari Formula 1 car. As confirmed in that decision (Thursday), the violation was already there in the simple possession of the information, which in itself constitutes an enormous advantage in a sport like Formula 1.
In Ferrari�s opinion, it is like playing a hand of poker with a rival who already knows what cards you are holding.
It remains incomprehensible that apart from possession, one must also demonstrate the effective and visible use of this information on the McLaren car. Actually, this very same fact, on the basis of available information which the FIA used to find McLaren guilty, shows that the offense lies in the possession, without the need to prove anything else. The proof is there and this led to the FIA�s decision. Therefore I find it difficult to understand how the verdict makes sense.
Furthermore, I have to say that the proof of effective use requested by the FIA is impossible for Ferrari to furnish, because of course, Ferrari does not have access to the McLaren car.[/quote]
| OnTheGas | 08-04-2007 05:57 PM |
Ferrari's "A reaction in the cold light of day" Letter cont.
�
�
second half...
[quote][b][i][URL="http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/39052/"]A reaction in the cold light of day[/URL][/i][/b]
A few weeks after the race in Melbourne, the McLaren team principal proposed that we should reach a sort of agreement to establish a better relationship between our two teams, thus avoiding any future denunciations to the sporting authority,� Todt said. �I replied that I found it impossible to believe him, because on several occasions we had seen that certain commitments had always been disregarded by McLaren. There was an exchange of views and, believing in their good faith, I agreed to sign this agreement on June 9.
Since that time and even earlier, McLaren was perfectly aware, not only of the emails sent by their informer within our company, but also of the fact that their chief designer had stayed in contact with him and had received and continued to be in possession of a significant amount of technical information that belonged to us. So, on the one hand, they had come to say, �Let us trust one another,� and on the other they were hiding serious facts such as those just stated above, but making no effort to inform us as would have been in the spirit and to the letter of our agreement.
Finally, it should be noted that (Thursday�s) meeting was not an appearance before a tribunal, but a meeting of the FIA World Council, at which only McLaren was asked to respond to accusations and in which we were present only as observers. Therefore there was no possibility to play an active role, as we would have wished. I was only able to ask a few questions and reply to some, but we were not able to present our case, nor the documents to support it.
This decision remains very disappointing and surprising. It is not acceptable to create a precedent in such an important case in which the guilty verdict for serious and persistent violation of the fundamental principle of sporting honesty does not automatically incur a penalty.
For our part, we will press on with the legal actions currently taking place in Italy and in England, and we do not rule out taking further action.[/quote]
[quote][b][i][URL="http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/39052/"]A reaction in the cold light of day[/URL][/i][/b]
A few weeks after the race in Melbourne, the McLaren team principal proposed that we should reach a sort of agreement to establish a better relationship between our two teams, thus avoiding any future denunciations to the sporting authority,� Todt said. �I replied that I found it impossible to believe him, because on several occasions we had seen that certain commitments had always been disregarded by McLaren. There was an exchange of views and, believing in their good faith, I agreed to sign this agreement on June 9.
Since that time and even earlier, McLaren was perfectly aware, not only of the emails sent by their informer within our company, but also of the fact that their chief designer had stayed in contact with him and had received and continued to be in possession of a significant amount of technical information that belonged to us. So, on the one hand, they had come to say, �Let us trust one another,� and on the other they were hiding serious facts such as those just stated above, but making no effort to inform us as would have been in the spirit and to the letter of our agreement.
Finally, it should be noted that (Thursday�s) meeting was not an appearance before a tribunal, but a meeting of the FIA World Council, at which only McLaren was asked to respond to accusations and in which we were present only as observers. Therefore there was no possibility to play an active role, as we would have wished. I was only able to ask a few questions and reply to some, but we were not able to present our case, nor the documents to support it.
This decision remains very disappointing and surprising. It is not acceptable to create a precedent in such an important case in which the guilty verdict for serious and persistent violation of the fundamental principle of sporting honesty does not automatically incur a penalty.
For our part, we will press on with the legal actions currently taking place in Italy and in England, and we do not rule out taking further action.[/quote]
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét