Espionage at Ferrari and McLaren

[FLC]

I still disagree.
Ferrari and Mclaren prob. share the same knowledge, more or less, on the entire matter, and so if this appeal is for show only, as you imply, I don't see how Mclaren could be destabilized.

More so, teams/factories/organizations at that size are not motivated by anger. I have no idea how familiar you are with accounting, but anger does not explain financial statements.
They have prob. made some serious thinking before deciding how to act. If they knew that there was no chance to change the results, they would sure swallow the peal given to them by the WMSC, which is smaller in size than the one they might get from the CoP, that's without even reminding the price.

[wunderkind]

Briatore on the spy saga:

We need to clear up this situation. 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.

Did you hear that, Mr. Ron Dennis?

I actually find Flavio Briatore's comments amusing.

In any other businesses, it is generally accepted that it is the responsibility of the employer to put in place measures to safeguard any material that is confidential and proprietary. If the employer (Ferrari in this case) has failed to monitor the activities of one of its most senior employees then Ferrari should really look long and hard at itself and see what it should do to avoid another occurrence. This is already the second public incident in recent years (two engineers left for Toyota with Ferrari data 2 years ago).

Is it really espionage?

I am a little bemused about the term "espionage" being applied to this affair. The word "espionage" implies an INTENT to obtain any material that is secret or off-limits.

McLaren never solicited (therefore no intent to obtain) the information and never offered any financial or any other non-financial consideration or incentive for the Ferrari dossier. It was passed to a McLaren staff member by a Ferrari staff member at a personal level!!!!

The word "espionage" should only be applied if McLaren intentionally seek to obtain the Ferrari dossier covertly. And this is definitely NOT the case and hence, the word "espionage" should not be used.

In contrast, McLaren has actually caught persons associated with the Red Team engaging in espionage activities. A person was once apprehended inside the McLaren garage for taking detailed pictures of the cars. That person turned out to be the cousin of the then Red Team senior aerodynamicist (Mr WT). And this happened time and time again over the years. McLaren was big enough to not make a big fuss out of it and got on with the job.

Ferrari is so bitter this time because it involved one of their most senior staff and the loss of the use of the moving floor has severely dented their chances of winning both the Championships in a year when they thought they'd walk the Driver's and Constructor's Championship.

[manchild]

It's self-espionage. Ferrari is trying to gain from an obvious loss due to their own member crime.

Who is really to blame? (if N.S. really did it)

1. Ferrari big giant heads for hiring person that can't be trusted.

2. Ferrari security officials for not preventing N.S. taking data out of company.

If N.S. uploaded data to web, according to Ferrari logic any surfer opening that page would be guilty of espionage.

They're such a crybabies.

[nae]

come now with this flowery talk

get to the point will ya

[theblackangus]

I agree Ron, it is fantastic. But why is McLaren where it is right now? They cannot say that they didn't benefit from Stepney leaking design data. It doesn't matter if they never saw a technical drawing, they clearly benefited when they asked for the rule clarification. Ferrari were not running an illegal part or their Austrialian win would've been taken away. Only after the rule clarification did the part become illegal.
If Ferrari is try to gain advantage by going against the spirit of the rules intentionally, what does that make them?

Ron did something gentlemanly. He didnt drag another team in the mud to get done what needed to be done. He did it quietly and respectfully.

Are you saying that Ferrari should be going against the spirit of the rules? And that they deserve that advantage because they were trying to be sneaky and hide it?

I dunno but it seems that Ron choose the path that let everyone off nicely.

Angus,
In every form of motorsport I've ever seen, if you're not bending the rules, you're in a Spyker. I've noticed that the key is to push to the very wording of the rules.

Just look at Benetton back in the 90's (right?): after they put a electronic diff in the front of the car, all the other teams whined similarly. "Oh, that's cheating!" However, as those breaths were leaving their mouths, they were designing front diff's of their own, only waiting if it would be judged illegal or not.

Breaking the rules is definitely wrong, and I don't agree with it. But I've noticed that the teams that are the fastest work hard on bending the rules as far as they'll go.

Zender05,
I agree with you to a great extent . Possibly I wasnt too clear, but look at the context of what Im saying.

Ginsu wrote (My emphasis):
But why is McLaren where it is right now? They cannot say that they didn't benefit from Stepney leaking design data. It doesn't matter if they never saw a technical drawing, they clearly benefited when they asked for the rule clarification.

Mclaren should not be viewed as having gained and advantage by having the rules clarified because another team(s) was bending them too far.
Mclaren asked for the review and if it was deemed legal then they would have had a flexy floor the next race. They didnt bend the rules there, and wanted to make sure that the rules were clear before they proceded. The FIA policy of rules clarification does the sport good. No one gets call a cheater but the rules are changed to make sure that bending them too far doesnt occur again. To say they gained an advantage isnt right as the team bending the rules too far had gained the advantage through suspect means of circumventing the test.

Looking for loopholes in the rules and exploiting them is fine. But having the rules explained and then simply designing something that circumvents the test isnt a good thing to do imho. I would imagine there is plenty of innovation left w/o trying to circumvent the tests.

To say mclaren is where they are today because of the ferrari materials is mostly silly. Their car is good this year. I wont deny they may have some strategic advantage from the documents, but I dont thing the ruling over the flexy floor should come into play there. (The strategic advantage would seem to be more having to do with fuel stratagies etc.)

Then again maybe Im just naive.

[FLC]

Flavio Briatore now really opens his mouth:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61334

Implying that Mclaren had info even before March:

"It's evident that they had the data on the weight distribution by Ferrari, who used Bridgestone tyres for almost ten years. That page in the famous stolen dossier would have been enough to save months of work and to find the solution immediately."

Hitting out at RD for being the hypocrite JT said he was:

"Look, we made the mistake of concentrating on wind tunnel work - it took us a month to set it up with the new tyre parameters.

"Two more months were wasted, in fact also thanks to Ron Dennis: he was the one who protested us on the mass damper. He is not the immaculate saint he pretends to be on his statements."

Hoping for the exclusion of Mclaren:

"I'm not a judge. Just read the regulations: for intellectual property theft the punishment is exclusion."

And on the mendatory ECU made by Microsoft and Mclaren:

"That remains to be seen. At the moment I'm writing a protest. We don't want them. First of all, because they don't work on our cars: the cars don't even start up. And second, why should we send some of our data to McLaren?"

Blue screens already...

[manchild]

"It's evident that they had the data on the weight distribution by Ferrari, who used Bridgestone tyres for almost ten years. That page in the famous stolen dossier would have been enough to save months of work and to find the solution immediately."

If that is the truth than it also means that Bridgestone lied about designing new compound, 2007 compound is 2004 compound, FIA opted for single supplier in order to help Ferrari, everything is big fat lie beginning with Indy 2005 staged Bridgestone superiority.

[FLC]

First, you take things out of context. Flavio said the work should have been done during the winter. He said renault was delayed in this because of crybaby RD, who complained about their mass damper.

Secondly, you are not at all biased. The ECU is made by Mclaren and so it is designed to help Mclaren? Why didn't the FIA chose MM to help Ferrari? Give me a break.

Indy 2005 was staged? That entire scandal just to make Bridgestone look better than Michelin when all they had to do, exactly like the ECU, was to choose them over Michelin in the tender? Who are you?! John Nash?!

[allan]

MC! U're calling them Crybabies? Have u ever looked in the mirror?

[manchild]

MC! U're calling them Crybabies? Have u ever looked in the mirror?

For the zillionth time - we're not discussing about me or any other forum member but about f1 participants.

[FLC]

Autosport.com now reports that Briatore was misquoted, but forgive me if I'm too insolent in saying that I personally believe he did say those things I quoted and linked to (the link now will send you to a notice on this matter) and that they were supposed to be off the record. Autosport are way too serious and reliable to make such an amateurish mistake.

More so, I think what he said in this new report is even more serious than all of the things combined he was misquoted on: ""Dennis says he's immaculate, but it's hard to believe him. No, I don't believe in his good faith. In a team everyone knows everything. Especially if the dossier - let's call it that - in question is at that level."

[DaveKillens]

It's become a fact to me that when Bridgestone became the sole supplier that Ferrari did gain an advantage over everyone. Secondly, Bridgestone did not engineer tires that put everyone on an equal footing. Now if anything needs examination by the FIA, this is it.

Flavio has had animosity against Ron Dennis for quite awhile, it peaked when Alonso was snatched away.

[FLC]

It's become a fact to me that when Bridgestone became the sole supplier that Ferrari did gain an advantage over everyone. Secondly, Bridgestone did not engineer tires that put everyone on an equal footing. Now if anything needs examination by the FIA, this is it.

Do you mind giving us some of the evidence that led you to that "fact"? Some times? Data?

Are you saying that the controlled ECU is meant to give the advantage to Mclaren on the same basis?

Bridgestone wasn't supposed to design tires that would put all teams on equal terms. Thats is one impossible tire to manufacture. Every team has a different setup/specifications. All teams were supposed to work on their cars since the tire was available to get on equal terms.

[modbaraban]

Are you saying that the controlled ECU is meant to give the advantage to Mclaren on the same basis?

Briatore said he's going to protest this

[FLC]

And how's that answering my question?

Briatore also went out against BS becoming the sole supplier at the time. Does that make it a fact that these moves are meant to create an advantage for certain teams? This is the evidence?