Renault race-fixing at Singapore 2008

[Miguel]

I think I'll open a can of worms and expose another point of view. After all, I haven't had any anarchic demonstration near my house in a while.

Let's suppose that Piquet did actually crash on purpose. What's wrong with that? No, really, I'm serious. Is there any rule prohibiting you from crashing? The thing is, the safety car rule was idiotic from the beginning. Teams were aware that the rule change meant high gains and losses at random. Many people were complaining before Spain 2007. Although other reasons exist, the no pit under Safety Car rule has heavily influenced both championships in which it was endured.

Drivers used to delay following cars when pitting under SC right behind their teammates. FIA banned that. OK. Are you going to ban crashing if it benefits your teammate? So, everytime anybody crashes and his teammate is behind, why shouldn't we give him a two race ban?

Yet another point of view. In Canada 2007 Kubica actually crashed on purpose. BMW felt that 2nd place was threatened by Alonso in a longer second stint and thus decided to hand him a stop and go penalty (worth more than the one point by which Kimi won at the end of the year). Now Mario Theissen is withdrawing from Formula One before anybody knows. I've just now realised that Alonso had already served his penalty before that humongous crash but it doesn't matter: the argument is equally silly.

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, Miguel, you always have the article 13.7 of the Sporting Code (the only one that applies in "scandals", at least lately:

13.7 If in the opinion of the F1 Commission a competitor fails to operate his team in a manner compatible with the standards of the Championship or in any way brings the Championship into disrepute, the FIA may exclude such competitor from the Championship forthwith.

In the strange case you don't fall under that rule (I did this morning, because I didn't woke up early and that could bring the FIA in disrepute, given enough newspapers headlines about me being late, good thing nobody noticed) then you have this jewel in the history of legislation (same style as Hammurabi, if you ask me):

16.1 "Incident" means any occurrence or series of occurrences involving one or more drivers, or any action by any driver, which is reported to the stewards by the race director (or noted by the stewards and referred to the race director for investigation) which:

- necessitated the suspension of a race under Article 41 (NOTE: the article talks about "Suspending a race");

...

Unless in the opinion of the race director it was completely clear that a driver was in breach of any of the above, any incidents involving more than one car will normally be investigated after the race.

16.2 a) It shall be at the discretion of the stewards to decide, upon a report or a request by the race director, if a driver or drivers involved in an incident shall be penalised.

So, from the legal point they have Nelson by the bollocks, but I'm no lawyer (thank heavens). Of course we have several around (if they aren't one they deserve to be).

[Shaddock]

I think I'll open a can of worms and expose another point of view. After all, I haven't had any anarchic demonstration near my house in a while.

Let's suppose that Piquet did actually crash on purpose. What's wrong with that? No, really, I'm serious

Wheels come off and hit spectators, marshalls have to run into the track to clear debris, other cars run over and hit flying objects (take Massa), and people generally get hurt, and lives are put a risk.

Renault almost got canned in Spain for a wheel coming off, accidently as it happens.

Cars can't drop oil on a corner, or spread tacks on the track for following cars to run over, or bump each other off the track. This is F1, not a Destruction Derby

[Miguel]

Thanks for the Sporting Code extracts, Ciro.

Cars can't drop oil on a corner, or spread tacks on the track for following cars to run over, or bump each other off the track. This is F1, not a Detruction Derby

That is exactly why I can't believe anyone would crash on purpose!

[ss.vamsikrishna]

I am dead sure this was more of Alonso's plan, to crash Piquet and win the race...he is a devious and cunning whiner
when is checking the track and he noticed the tortise stones at the corners and protested against it..he might have come up with this devious and sick idea...
[-X

I know all the Alonso fans would cry seeing this like Alonso

[jon-mullen]

I know all the Alonso fans would cry seeing this like Alonso

Fortunately I chow down plausible deniability without thinking after living under Bush 43 for eight years.

[Moanlower]

I found it funny when looking back at Renault F1's blogs from Singapore 2008. Not that I think it's any proof or something, just funny.

Saturday 27 September 2008 at 20:45:13 by RF1 Paddock Pass

Well, that was frustrating wasn’t it? The R28 has never looked so competitive and we don’t even get the chance to realise its potential. I’ve been reading all your comments and share your disappointment. There’s no other word for it, the whole team is gutted. You could see as soon as Fernando got out of the car just how cross he was. We could have done something really special this weekend and instead we are in for our most difficult race of the season.

However, things are far from over, and anything can happen in the race, but the team knows that scoring points is not going to be easy. It could rain, we could have safety cars and so the team will have to be creative with the strategy. Despite this disappointment, the team won’t give up and we’ll do all we can to help Fernando and Nelson fight back in the race.

__________________

Starting so far back is even more galling on a street circuit which looks like being almost impossible to overtake on. But we won't give up and Pat Symonds has confirmed that the team will do all it can to help the drivers fight back with a creative strategy. We know that anything can happen in the race, especially on a street circuit where safety cars are a genuine possibility, and so the team will be ready to maximise any opportunities that present themselves. Points will be a long shot, but not out of the question.

[Shaddock]

Maybe pitting early on a street circuit where you can't overtake, is called 'creative' :^o

[WhiteBlue]

The FIA used some skilled investigators who also caught the guys who set up Mosley for the sex scandal. When these pros put Renault team members to questioning and threaten the full weight of the FIA's power over their licensees someone will yield. Particularly if Piquet was providing details on the job which can be used to pressurise some team members to start with. By adding the testimony the digging will go deeper and deeper very quickly.

Yet again you presume guilt - no doubt I have got the "context" wrong.

My friend, I presume nothing. Piquet has made allegations that were investigated. Investigation is carried out regardless of the later outcome before the WMSC. All I pointed out is that a skilled interrogator with some leads to start with can generate a lot of evidence, which was denied by some members here. People seem to think that only technical evidence would be available. Stepneygate has shown that testimony of the involved team personal can play a crucial role, particularly when the FIA has jurisdiction over their license (Alonso).

My personal guess at the moment is that someone is guilty beyond Piquet who has incriminated himself to kick the investigation off. The easiest way to get more info is to squeeze Fernando Alonso under the threat to withdraw his superlicense, unless he cooperates. That way the FIA will have his full cooperation as they had it in the case of Stepneygate from De la Rosa and Hamilton. Remember De la Rosa contributed some of the most damning evidence that got McLaren into very hot water. He certainly wasn't very comfortable to do so but had no choice if he wanted to continue as an F1 driver. In this case it is quite similar for the drivers. Again, I don't say Renault are guilty. I just say I believe they are.

[Miguel]

Maybe pitting early on a street circuit where you can't overtake, is called 'creative' :^o

It obviously is, since it seems so retarded for everybody, but it worked for Hamilton in Melbourne and worked for Alonso. The truth is, Alonso made up 4 positions in the start, and due to speed difference was going to catch Trulli and its train in some 10-12 laps... before Trulli's first pitstop.

[Moanlower]

Maybe pitting early on a street circuit where you can't overtake, is called 'creative' :^o

It obviously is, since it seems so retarded for everybody, but it worked for Hamilton in Melbourne and worked for Alonso. The truth is, Alonso made up 4 positions in the start, and due to speed difference was going to catch Trulli and its train in some 10-12 laps... before Trulli's first pitstop.

I think what he ment was that pitting early with a fast car on a track with little chance to overtake is more like a conventional strategy when you know you have to start at P15 or so, and that the creative part is to be found somewhere else.

[Shaddock]

The truth is, Alonso made up 4 positions in the start, and due to speed difference was going to catch Trulli and its train in some 10-12 laps... before Trulli's first pitstop.

The strategy only works if you can guarantee a safety car period shortly after the drivers first stop, otherwise, it’s a big gamble. When your own team mate spins his car into the wall at the ‘appropriate’ time, you drastically shorten your odds of this strategy paying off.

I think Renault are astute enough to keep Alonso out of the loop. They have very recent experience of previous FIA investigations (McLarens stolen inerter discs) and how they interview and squeeze employees into spilling the beans. IF Renault did conspire to make this incident happen, then my guess would be only two people currently working at Renault would have been present with Piquet when this was discussed and would be party to it.

[pgj]

I thought that it had now been established that Nelson did not blow the whistle. He was asked why investigators were questioning Renault Team members at the Hungarian race and then gave his side of the story. The investigation had already started by someone and the finger was being pointed at Max for pursuing another vendetta.

[Shaddock]

I thought that it had now been established that Nelson did not blow the whistle. He was asked why investigators were questioning Renault Team members at the Hungarian race and then gave his side of the story. The investigation had already started by someone and the finger was being pointed at Max for pursuing another vendetta.

Some rumours point to Piquet Snr being the whistleblower. He used to run his mouth off when he was still driving in F1, maybe somethings never change.

[xpensive]

This entire story might simply be a result of Piquet Sr's twisted sense of humour. Just six months ago it was reported that he had his old employer, MrE, to buy his Rolex, conned him to believe he was broke.
That's the level.