Renault race-fixing at Singapore 2008

[Scotracer]

If there is just a 1 lap difference between the pitstops, the man that pitted first has to achieve sector times on his out lap equal to the man that pits 2nd on his in lap.

I thought this was common sense...

@ anyone not getting it:

Why do you think the commentators and engineers always try to stretch out an extra lap? Being able to run longer than someone just ahead of you or just behind you is king.

[kilcoo316]

I thought this was common sense...

So did I.


In fact, I'm quite shocked there is actually someone on here (as most are pretty knowledgeable) that didn't get that!


[and I think its actually quite funny that it happens to be one of those that have elevated themselves to quite a height that is gonna be taking the fall!]

[ISLAMATRON]

Coulthard was extremely important to Alonso's race.
You are either too proud to admit your wrong, or are not intelligent enough to realise it.

If he was so important bringyour proof, saying I am wrong is not proof. Even if DC was not between FA & LH, LH would not have been able to pass because it was Singapore... If LH could not pass DC he definitely could not have passed FA on the track. And the 1 lap extra that LH had in hand would probably have not been enough... when was the last time a 1 lap difference thru the pits led to a pass? Bring proof, not your usual BS... FA could not pass LH with a lap in hand at 07 USGP(FA's did have a mistake)... and that is a track where overtaking is much easier.

Yes, the man that pits second does have cold tyres, and is not as quick as he might be on his outlap.

BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER AS THE OTHER GUY IS TRAPPED BEHIND HIM.
And your the self proclaimed expert on race strategy?!?!?!

You ever actually watched a race and tried to understand what is going on???

Again more of your absurd assumptions, IT IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THE EARLIER PITTING DRIVER IS TRAPPED BEHIND, the trailing driver would have to have and "in" lap fast enough to make up the time he was trailing... is that a guarantee? No, furthermore, the driver who pitted first has warm tires and can dive into turn 1 much faster.

1 lap has rarely ever been enough, like I said bring forth your proof... if it happens so often it should be easy.

are multiple advantages to pitting one lap later. Here are a few (read the bit below to see why they matter):

- The man that pitted first has to carry a full fuel tank around on his outlap
- The man that pitted first has to get heat into his tyres
- The man that pitted first has to gauge the grip levels of his new tyres

If there is just a 1 lap difference between the pitstops, the man that pitted first has to achieve sector times on his out lap equal to the man that pits 2nd on his in lap.

Again more absurd assumptions, you allways seem to forget that the driver in front has a LEAD, that is why he is in front, So you are saying that no matter what the lead is the driver with 1 more lap of fuel will allways come out ahead? 10 sec? 20 Sec? your magic 1 lap of fuel is amazing... for us in the real world we know that there is a point where the amount of gap trumps the 1 lap fuel advantage.

We also know that last years cars were the most aero sensitive cars in the history of F1, hence the massive aero changes to get rid of all that. Yes LH may have gotten close to DC a couple time but had to eventually back off because of overheating tires or engine temps or both... that was the nature of the 2008 cars. Gap from DC to LH was .67, .70, .48, .40, .73, .62, .56, .68, .67, .83, .68, .81, .62, .97, .90, .78, .64, .79 See any pattern there? Everytime he got close he had to back off, and the longer into the run the farther he bad to back off. I remeber watching those numbers as they happened.

By the way, do you see what I did there... I brought proof... numbers, real world data, not your usual conjecture
wanna check the numbers F1matrix.it... look for yourself.

So now does your almighty magic 1 lap fuel advantage trump the lead FA would have ALREADY had in hand?

Absolutely DC made FA's life easier, he could have easily won it regardless.

[ISLAMATRON]

I thought this was common sense...

So did I.


In fact, I'm quite shocked there is actually someone on here (as most are pretty knowledgeable) that didn't get that!


[and I think its actually quite funny that it happens to be one of those that have elevated themselves to quite a height that is gonna be taking the fall!]

What is actually quite funny is that your common sense forgets to account that the LEAD driver has a LEAD, and is thus called as such and that the size of that lead is just as important as the fact that the TRAILING driver has 1 lap more fuel.

I have watched enough racing to know that a 1 lap longer fuel stint does not allways equal a change in position... you seem to think it is guaranteed.

If having more fuel onboard always trumps out with your magical equations, why then does the driver with the most fuel onboard at the start not always win the race?

[bhall]

Quite the pissing contest you guys got goin' on here. Impressive.

Is this the Internet equivalent to revving your engine at a traffic light to demonstrate the size of your cock?

Well, color me impressed. Can we move on?

[Ciro Pabón]

I ask all of you to stop arguing about small issues. This thread is at the end of its useful life, suffering from what I'd call the "over-quote malady". When over 50% of the thread is made of quotes of previous posts and large font sizes appear, the thread is f%&$ed (that is, boring as hell).

Please provide some content or it will be closed.

So, any more heated arguments from kilcoo and Islam, quoting and counterquoting themselves will be simply erased, to keep the site (and myself) sane; I apologize in advance for this clear censure, but I'm at the end of my "patience rope".

If I could talk like a member I would say something like:

"Stop talking to each other, my self centered friends, and start contributing to an attractive and easygoing forum. We don't come here to hear two guys yelling (or its electronic equivalent).

There are pleeeeenty of forums where you can exercise that recently appeared "Internet right", that is, the right of annoying a community. I kindly and respectfully remind you that this is a technical site, we're not a "scandal forum", altough we might resort to create one."

However, as I'm a moderator, I would never say such things.

[ISLAMATRON]

Is race strategy not a technical issue?

[jon-mullen]

I was under the impression the FIA had every car's telemetry in 2008 (sorry if I'm mistaken). So my question is this:

Would the FIA have announced an investigation if they hadn't ALREADY looked at Piquet's telemetry?

(edit: or do they have to announce then subpoena?)

[Scotracer]

What is actually quite funny is that your common sense forgets to account that the LEAD driver has a LEAD, and is thus called as such and that the size of that lead is just as important as the fact that the TRAILING driver has 1 lap more fuel.

I have watched enough racing to know that a 1 lap longer fuel stint does not allways equal a change in position... you seem to think it is guaranteed.

If having more fuel onboard always trumps out with your magical equations, why then does the driver with the most fuel onboard at the start not always win the race?

Unless the driver behind makes a mistake, there are almost zero chance of the driver that pits early being able to lap within a second or two of the other. If 10kg of fuel is worth 0.3 a second, and the usual pitstop is 90kg you get 2.7 seconds slower plus the colder tyres then you're probably going to be 3 seconds slower. If you think the newly pitted driver can make that up on his outlap...well, there you go. So using the above, anywhere up to 3 seconds of a lead if you have to pit 1 lap early means you are probably going to lose your position.

[Ciro Pabón]

Is race strategy not a technical issue?

Well, I concede technically speaking, it is... However, I receive a dozen pricks a day about how the threads have little technical content but a lot of "original research" arguments. To put it mildly, please, we can read what ALL of you've already wrote, I would ask ALL of you to stop "dissecting" contrarian posts, it makes the thread boring (and I get a report a day about it).

[Giblet]

I think, speaking from experience, that long winded split apart posts with quotes all over are made by someone who thinks that being so concise to every point from every person means that their post will "win".

Unfortunately, when trying to discuss so many points in one post, it's like trying to have 5 arguments at once. Not a good way for discussion to take place, and it makes people want to respond even more, to every point. A concise "No, I don't agree, let's move on to the topic at hand..." will usually "win" when a person who wants to make you agree gives you 50 talking points, thinking it will change your mind.

It won't. I've even said on this forum "If I am wrong, I go to sleep wrong tonight. No problem."

On topic:

I don't think that Nelson was asked to crash on purpose. The monitored radio call should be enough to prove that. I think he has sour grapes, and like Bernie said "Nelson is a very angry young man", and since he refuses to believe he is not cut out for F1, he will continue to blame and try to find blame every where.

If it is true, I am sure it was Flavio who was behind it, and I am sure that Fernando was not behind it.

This is what I want to believe. Hope it's true.

[megz]

If he was so important bringyour proof, saying I am wrong is not proof. Even if DC was not between FA & LH, LH would not have been able to pass because it was Singapore... If LH could not pass DC he definitely could not have passed FA on the track. And the 1 lap extra that LH had in hand would probably have not been enough... when was the last time a 1 lap difference thru the pits led to a pass?

Raikkonen vs. Massa - France 2007
Schumacher vs. Fisichella - Shanghai 2006

There's two from the top of my head.

Also Lewis did pass DC on track... It was about 2 turns before DC made his 2nd stop AAANNND Trulli was passed by both Rosberg and Alonso in consecutive laps earlier in the race so overtaking was well possible.

Back to business.



THE SINGAPORE SCANDAL IN DETAIL

The stories that there is an investigation going on into Renault F1 emerged on Sunday in Spa, but it is now clear that the FIA had already been interviewing team members in the course of the Belgian Grand Prix weekend. It is believed that the investigation may be broader than originally thought. Among those interviewed were Fernando Alonso and the team's executive engineer Pat Symonds. It is not clear whether team boss Flavio Briatore was questioned or not, but it is hard to imagine that he would not be included, as he is always to be found on the pitwall and likes to involve himself in the race management of the team.

It is believed that the FIA is using an independent investigation agency and there is speculation that this may be Quest, a London-based corporate intelligence, investigations and risk mitigation company, which is headed by Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, a former Commissioner of Police of the Metropolitan Police. The company has a specific group which specialises in the sports industry and gained a reputation with its 2006 investigation of transfers in British soccer, carried out on behalf of the Football Association.

It is interesting to note that Renault has said nothing at all about the stories. The only indication thus far has come from Bernie Ecclestone, who says that Briatore is saying he knows nothing of the allegations. The publicity is obviously not something that is good for the car company, but it is clear that it cannot deny that the investigation is taking place and thus will have to wait for the findings. In its past dealings with the FIA, Renault has adopted a policy of admitting everything and throwing itself at the mercy of the federation. This was a tactic used in 1994 (when the team was known as Benetton) and was accused of having removed a filter from its refuelling machine. The FIA ruled that the filter had been removed by "a junior member" of the team. It worked again in 2007 when the team was found to have data from McLaren in its computers. It also worked a few weeks ago when Renault was fighting a ban after being found to have knowingly sent Alonso out of the pitlane without a wheel being properly attached.

However, admitting to race fixing is simply not an option.

The problem for investigators is to find incontrovertible evidence that the race was fixed. This may not be possible unless someone involved admits it, or if there are any recordings of conversations relating to the alleged scheme. Nelson Piquet Jr may claim he was coerced into crashing the car by the team, but he is likely to be viewed as a disgruntled ex-employee, unless he recorded conversations. Having said that Piquet must know that this scandal will definitely end his F1 career (one way or the other) and thus it might be wise to say nothing, unless he is already resigned to the fact that he will not get another chance. In that case, his only possible salvation is that the allegations are proven and he emerges from the scandal as a whistleblower and hero of the piece.

The evidence available to investigators will come from data that the FIA probably already has from the black box in Piquet's car. This will include steering and accelerator inputs, these might indicate whether the car was spun deliberately, when compared to previous laps, but they are unlikely to prove conclusively that it was a deliberate act. There is also the radio traffic between the car and the pit which may reveal conversations that support the theory. Clearly there is not going to be a recording of someone at Renault saying "Nelson. It is time to crash", but there might be remarks which seem out of place, such as Piquet asking what lap he is on, at a time when that information was not obviously important for his race.

The investigation will almost certainly take into account the circumstances at the time.

When the F1 circus arrived in Singapore, Renault F1 had not won a race for almost two years. The pressure was on Renault F1 to justify the cost of the sport and there were many rumours that Renault boss Carlos Ghosn was going to stop the programme. Singapore was a big new event with a great opportunity to make an impact in Asia. In qualifying Alonso was only 15th, with Piquet 16th. The track offered no real opportunities for overtaking and so winning from that position was virtually impossible, no matter how fast the car was. Alonso started the race with fuel for only 12 laps. He made up some places and was 11th when he pitted but, of course, this dropped him to 20th place as a result of the stop. Piquet then crashed on lap 14 and the pitlane was closed, the only team getting its cars into pitlane before the Safety Car was deployed being Red Bull Racing. Two drivers (Nico Rosberg and Robert Kubica) had to pit when the pitlane was closed because they did not have the fuel to go further. Most of the others pitted when the pitlane was declared open. The result was that Alonso emerged in fifth place, behind Rosberg, Jarno Trulli, Giancarlo Fisichella and Kubica. Trulli and Fisichella pitted later and Rosberg and Kubica were penalised and so Alonso took the lead on lap 34 and was able to remain ahead all the way to the finish. It should perhaps be mentioned that the pit stops ruined Felipe Massa's race and, one might argue, could ultimately be blamed for him losing the World Championship as he was leading before the Safety Car and finished out of the points in 13th.

All of this, however, is still just circumstantial evidence. In the McLaren case in 2007 this was all that was needed for the $100m fine. The team might have gone on fighting that but decided that the best way to minimise the damage was to give up the fight when faced with the possibility of having its 2008 season disrupted as well.

The interviewing process will, nonetheless, be important in the current case. Getting someone to confess to something that would possibly result in a lifetime ban from F1 is not a simple task. Much depends on the skill of the person asking the questions and the pressures on the people being questioned. If, for example, someone involved felt that he was going to be taking the blame while others got away with it, he might feel that this was not fair and try to reach some kind of bargain with the interviewer to save his own skin by implicating others.

Lack of evidence does not prove innocence and the team knows this first hand as back in 1994 when it was called Benetton it was found to have software in Michael Schumacher's car at the ill-fated San Marino Grand Prix that included a "launch control" feature which could be activated with a lap-top computer using a hidden "option 13″ on a list of 10 options. The FIA investigation at the time concluded that although the system was there, it could not be proven that it had been used. The FIA's response at the time was to fine the team $100,000 for failing to supply the governing body with access to its systems within the time limits demanded. Those involved may not have been found guilty but it is fair to say that their involvement was not forgotten in F1 circles.

The real danger for the team, however, is possibly not the investigation but rather the bad publicity that is being generated and the effect this will have at Renault World Headquarters in Boulogne-Billancourt, where F1 has been a subject of much debate in recent times. The company has been saying for a long time that F1 is good for Renault as long as it produces positive results. These have been few and far between in 2009. This kind of negative story, following the unsecured wheel punishment in Hungary, Nelson Piquet's damning remarks about team boss Flavio Briatore and another year without wins could all combine to push Renault to decide that it has had enough. It is committed to stay in F1 until the end of 2012 but the team can be given away or sold.

If there is a confession the damage could be massive and, might even, include bans for the team, Briatore and Alonso.

SOURCE: Joe Saward's Grand Prix Blog

Not to throw fuel on the fire here but if this was Renault needing good publicity perhaps Red Bull were in on this hence why the managed to pit before the pit lane being closed....

Then again, it could just be that Red Bull had the cleverness to just do it.

[Ray]

Has Fernando actually said anything about this investigation? Cause all I've seen and all I could find it that the 'FIA are looking into last years Singaporean GP'. So to speak. I haven't seen a peep out of Fernando. Maybe not him not saying anything about it is the best option? That way there can't be any misquoting of what he says?

[Ray]

Lack of evidence does not prove innocence...
......Getting someone to confess to something that would possibly result in a lifetime ban from F1 is not a simple task. Much depends on the skill of the person asking the questions and the pressures on the people being questioned.

I'm sorry but I must say this again. THIS is the problem with the world in general today. There is absolutely no concrete evidence that they told PK to crash, and yet this idiot is saying that they have to provide evidence that they are innocent of the accusations. This means that anyone at anytime may accuse any team or team member of doing any number of things and be punished severely unless they prove that they have not done anything wrong. WTF is wrong with this guy? I'm ashamed to think that anyone would agree with this utter and complete nonsense. What a bunch of loaded BS this person is spouting. This is akin to torturing someone to just admit anything under threat of being banned for life, and it can be done. Look at the reaction by people here about something they have absolutely no information on. They act like they know exactly what went on at that race, in the engineers heads, and on the pit wall while probably not even being in the same time zone as this race was. If you think that Renault owes the world evidence to prove their innocence for something that is a wild accusation with not a single shred of evidence proving they did it, you need to get your head examined or kept away from the general public for our benefit.

[Giblet]

There is no concrete evidence, but there must be compelling evidence to warrant such a large investigation.