Renault race-fixing at Singapore 2008

[The Local Ride]

At Turn 17 where Piquet crashed, normally the rear wheels of the Renault would lose grip on the exit - requiring the driver to ease off the throttle briefly. However, on the lap he crashed, Piquet kept accelerating even though the rear wheels had lost grip.

Symonds is also reported as saying: "It's true, during the Sunday meeting with Piquet the issue of deliberately causing a SC deployment came up, but it was proposed by Piquet himself. It was just a conversation."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78446

WTF????

[sticky667]

the comments by Pat Symmonds sound guilty as charged. He's pushing the blame back on Nelson. Why on earth would Nelson agree to help Fernando and put his life on the line for a freak accident? That's ludicrous.

Who in the world knows what type of accident he would be able to achieve. If he died or had serious injuries, do you think Flav and Pat would stand up and say it was their idea.

edit: pending the results of the investigation by Singapore, if Alonso was directly involved and his super license is in doubt, Ferrari are in a serious pickle with 2010 drivers. this could be fun to watch the merry go round.

[bill shoe]

It seems clear from various forms of evidence that Piquet did crash intentionally. Now we are reduced to discussing if the FIA should investigate and take action. I still vote no.

I trust the FIA to do objective things like measure the width of a wing or time a lap. I do not trust the FIA to make good judgements about evidence regarding whether or not Piquet was told to do something or if he took his own initiative.

Right now it is pretty clear to the world what happened. I don't have confidence that the FIA can improve this situation regardless of what their decision turns out to be.

[Motornic]

It doesn't change the scenario. How does one prove who is lying? This is like the nasty divorce case my cousin is going through. He said/she said. Piquet does it and outs them only after losing his job? Being only three know of this meeting, who is you witness to prosecute the other?

[jddh1]

This all sounds bonkers to me. Fernando was quick all weekend before he had the engine problem.
After Sutil's accident the SC came out again and bunched up the field. After it went it, Alonso put in a 6 second gap in about 3 or 4 laps.
Look, all I'm saying is that Fernando was quick, Nelsinho is mad he got sacked, and he always crashed. In fact, I think the FIA should investigate the times when he did NOT crash. I would like to see that.

[modbaraban]

This is getting more frightening for the team. Renault may well leave F1.

I think the FIA should investigate the times when he did NOT crash. I would like to see that.

That would be a very short investigation.

[Ray]

This all sounds bonkers to me. Fernando was quick all weekend before he had the engine problem.
After Sutil's accident the SC came out again and bunched up the field. After it went it, Alonso put in a 6 second gap in about 3 or 4 laps.
Look, all I'm saying is that Fernando was quick, Nelsinho is mad he got sacked, and he always crashed. In fact, I think the FIA should investigate the times when he did NOT crash. I would like to see that.

Exactly. He was visibly heartbroken when his fuel pump failed in qualifying. He was quick all weekend. We have absolutely zero proof this happened, it is honestly too little too late in my opinion, and all we have is hearsay and interviews with people that weren't on camera. Let it die, please.

[bill shoe]

Adam Cooper has a new column out at SpeedTV.com. The last few paragraphs make a strong case for Renault misconduct even if they did not tell Piquet to crash.

http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/ ... g-renault/

Summary-
During a pre-race meeting, Piquet discussed crashing and causing a safety car at a helpful time for Alonso's strategy (confirmed by FIA interview with Pat Symonds). During the race he continuously asked what lap it was, which was not his normal behavior (confirmed by FIA audio recordings of Singapore and the entire 2008 season). Then he crashed out of the race and caused a safety car at the time he had discussed (public record). Then Renault announced before the final race of 2008 that Piquet was re-signed for 2009, despite his entire season before and after Singapore being the poorest in terms of crashes and pace for any rookie in several years (public record).

Again, I don't have any interest in the FIA investigation, but there is already enough information in the public domain to hang Renault regardless of whether or not team management initiated the idea.

[WhiteBlue]

It looks like the plot is firming up nicely.

We now have testimony that the race fixing has been discussed and technical evidence that fits the allegation (radio traffic for lap status and Piquet not lifting where he usually would).

We also have Flabby preparing to hang Symmonds out to dry:

- He claims he was dissapointed watching the crash
- Piquet claims he was clueless on how to read a race let alone fix one
- There was elaborate technical detail envolved in picking the crash point (no cranes in respective corners)

Flabby will probably claim he took everything said as an expression of Piquet's instable mental situation. He will probably argue that all was done behind his back and make Symmonds the scape goat.

I' looking forward to the show.

[Pup]

It's a classic prisoner's dilemma - the threat of Flavio blaming it all on Symonds means that Symonds was more likely to spill the beans, which it looks like he did, albeit with the weak excuse that it was all Piquet's idea.

It could go down like you're saying - anything can happen in F1 - but why would Symonds take all the blame, when he could cut a deal and testify that Flavio was the mastermind of the whole thing? Tried and true prosecution strategy. I bet the Quest guys are laughing at how easily they earned their fee.

[WhiteBlue]

If Flabby falls down on this and Symmonds goes free he could join his old friend Brawn.

But I still think Flabby will get Bernie to bail him out and sell FOTA marketing objectives for his skin.

[Fil]

if one goes down, they all go down.

even if it is proven that this was Jr's idea, whoever was in on this (Flav & Pat at this stage) would be obliged legally to forward their information to relevant authorities at the time. They didn't so they all go down.

if it was proven to be management's idea, Jr still went through with it. So they all go down.

[jddh1]

BREAKING NEWS:
Kimi also crashed on purpose in Singapore. The only problem was that during the meeting Kimi was either drunk or asleep, or both, and so he did not remember exactly what lap he should've hit the curbs to destabilize the car. He did it too late and Massa was already out because of the other calculated incident of the refueling rig.

[Shaddock]

All three of them are going to apportion blame to each other.

The erratic driver desperate to have his contract extended for next year by his manager and team boss.

The team boss whose desperate to keep his number 1 driver and two times WC happy, after a technical failure ruins his qualifying, in an otherwise disappointing season.

The brilliant race strategist and unofficial Renault number 2 who knows which corner a crash/incident would deploy the SC.

Does it matter whose idea it was? Pat Symonds would have to have agreed with the suggestion and explained to Alonso that he was going to a light fuel load in the hope of a SC, and decided on what lap this would occur.

Flav was at the meeting and would have had to given the ‘nod’ for Pat to organise these events.

[tok-tokkie]

From Planet-F1
http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954, ... 01,00.html

Giancarlo Fisichella might be a little relieved that Nelsinhogate has erupted just before his Ferrari debut. Renault's alleged manipulation of the 2008 Singapore GP will be the story dominating the Italian GP weekend.

Details of the story are being leaked to the press and Italian magazine Autosprint has been rounding up the latest developments. Far from the affair being a vendetta against the Renault team, the allegations of race fixing are believed to have come direct from Nelson Piquet Senior and Junior in the wake of Junior's sacking from the team.

The story that has been pieced together is that Piquet Junior, Renault's Director of Engineering Pat Symmonds and Team Principal Flavio Briatore had a meeting on the Sunday of the Singapore GP. At the time Piquet hadn't got a drive for 2009 and was keen to please.

While it is disputed whose idea it actually was, the idea itself was allegedly that Piquet would crash at Turn 17 shortly after Fernando Alonso's very early pit-stop, bringing out the Safety Car and allowing Fernando to take the lead of the race. Because there was no crane to remove the car at Turn 17, a crash there would almost certainly necessitate a Safety Car period.

The telemetry on Piquet's car apparently shows that during the race his car goes light on the exit, but he still keeps his foot on the throttle to invoke the spin.

It's believed that Symonds and Briatore aren't disputing the fact that they had a discussion about a deliberate accident to assist Alonso, but are adamant that it was Piquet Junior's own idea and they didn't ask him to do it.

Piquet's claim is understood to be that Symonds and Briatore asked him to crash to bring out the Safety Car. So there seems to be little dispute at all that it was a pre-arranged accident, the only area of contention is - did he jump or was he pushed?

The allegations are potentially more damaging to the sport than the McLaren's spygate saga of 2007. As a result of Piquet's spin Felipe Massa, who was leading the race, was forced into a disastrous pit-stop that severely dented his World Championship chances.

Had Massa continued without the Safety Car, he might have won the race and gone on to become World Champion.

It's been claimed that the Singapore race-fix matter came to light on July 26th - the day of Piquet's last race for Renault in Hungary - when his father Nelson contacted FIA President Max Mosley to make him aware of what had happened.

If this is the case then it is a potentially ruinous admission. As Bernie Ecclestone has already said: "If I tell you to go and rob a bank and you get caught, you can't say, 'Well Bernie told me to'." Whether it was his idea or not, Piquet Junior will be forever associated with cheating from September 21st onwards.

What's more, both he and his father are hostile witnesses. They are witnesses with an axe to grind, so any legal hearing would likely take their testimony to be coloured and not impartial.

The Piquet's need to be certain they have enough independent evidence to support their claim. Otherwise Felipe Massa and their fellow countrymen will always resent the fact that Nelsinho's actions cost him a World Championship.

He might always resent him anyway. He could have said no. There are going to be very few winners from this latest round of F1 controversy, other than those at the FIA who are about to flex their muscles.