Espionage at Ferrari and McLaren

[bizadfar]

They ain't new at all this year.

OK, but according to the people who make them they are not a progression of, nor based on, last year's tires. (They are more similar to the tires from 3 or four years ago in a practical sense)

It is common knowledge that this year's tires were not the advantage for Ferrari that people initially expected last year. Once teams started testing with them it showed the gap was nowhere near what some predicted.

Rob W

So as I said, they ain't new...

Yes they are the 2003/2004 spec. After 2004 hungary they had a major breakthrough in the construction, they're basically using that.

[casper]

In an article in Grandprix.com, Nigel Stephey reveals some important information how the exchange of information started. Apparently he wrote Mad Max and Charlie Whiting since he was concerned about the legality of the movable floor, which appararently is a mass damper device banned by the Ferrari International Assistance during the 2006 Championship round. Following are some excerpts I liberally copied. To read the whole article, go to http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19721.html.

"Dear President" it reads, "You and I have known each other for many years and you like I have always had Formula 1 at the centre of our heart. The issues that have arisen have indeed been very distressing, especially when the media have been leaked information from sources that are not fully aware of the truth. These accusations have tarnished Formula 1. This has therefore pushed me to write this letter to you to explain the circumstances of events. I'd like to break the circumstances of events into 3 separate issues which I hope will help clarify the situation for you.

1) My initial doubts

In January of 2007 during the assembly of the new car I first bought up the subject about the reservations I had on the concept and legality of the front floor system with the Chief Designer Aldo Costa and another 2 senior design personnel at Ferrari. I pointed out to them the various points that concerned me and what other teams also might eventually pick-upon. The Chief designer said he would look into it. Later on in the month of February a couple of items had been better disguised before the Australian GP, but these were only cosmetic changes. I asked at the time, if we had asked the FIA for any clarification on the system which we could do, as defined under Article 2.4 in the Technical Regulations. The response was NO we will go with the system as it is and take any advantage up to the time any team makes noises to the FIA, at the minimum we will have at least 1 race under our belts before any action can be taken. Up to mid February I was the person responsible for the legality aspects of the car and each previous year I had always spoken to the Technical Director about any reservations I had on the legality of the cars, he would then go away to discuss the details and then come back later with the answers and explain to me where we stood. So this was a normal situation during the course of my duties. I decided in mid February to step down from my role as Technical Manager for various reasons one of which was this new way of approaching the regulations, I also declined to accept the responsibility in my new role of Team Performance Manager, of being responsible for the legality of the car, and made it clear to various other top team representatives that for me the car was illegal in a couple of areas. Nobody took any notice which was very frustrating.

Later on in February I was still not comfortable with this philosophy and contacted Peter Wright to ask him for his technical advice on the subject of the legality of the front floor system. He said he could give his own advice on the subject but I could only get an official clarification from Charlie Whiting, I said for now his own comments would be sufficient. Later on I sent Peter an e-mail on the details of the system and laid out my concerns on the Ferrari's front floor system. I described that for me it did not conform to Article 3.15 in the Technical Regulations and it could also possibly be conceived as being at the beginning of a crude lever type mass damper.

.... succeeding discussions cut for brevity.

This shows Ferrari's intent on wining at all costs, even to the point of deceiving FIA, and other teams.



Casper

[FLC]

First, your link doesn't work. Secondly, I wouldn't count so much on that site you wish to direct us too, as it proved itself the most biased of all.
In light of the last threads here about one particular story published by our moderators, who unlike those of Grandprix.com have taken responsibility and cleared things up (although some used a very inappropriate language against them), this is a site who publish biased "news" stories on a regular basis. Here is one example from a recent one:

"The news that Lewis Hamilton would not be punished over the Safety Car in Japan was a good decision as it put a cap on allegations bubbling away about possible manipulation of the World Championship. That is not the kind of story that the sport needs to be attracting. If nothing else, motor racing must be seen to be fair".

"McLaren has been given a $100m fine and that made a lot of headlines but analysis of the headlines has clearly shown that the punishment was not backed up by any real evidence".

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19750.html


If you had bothered to read the transcripts from the WMSC meetings you would have known that Stepney indeed wrote to the FIA, but never made what they refer to as whistle blowing. Max Mosley was willing to expose them, but for some reason, which wouldn't be very hard to figure out, McLaren's lawyer wasn't interested.

I'm pretty sure that most of us agree that what Ferrari has done with the floor device wasn't cheating or any different than what other teams are doing in their search of the loopholes in the rule book. If you think Ferrari are the only one to do it, you are lying to yourself.

And I wouldn't even bother to explain anything about Stepney's integrity nowadays.

[vblh]

Hello everyone, i'm new but i have been lurking for about a year now.

Let me start by saying that I'm a McLaren fan but i do beleive that since they were found guilty they should have been excluded from both the WDC & WCC. I don't get the exclusion from 1 but not the other. They were found to have information that they shouldn't have had so by all means punish them.

But i do wonder why all the Ferrari fans are making such a big deal out of this. It's as if McLaren copied the F2007 wholesale & then beat them with their own car!!! Just looking at the McLaren you can see that they have been developing their design ideas for a few years now.

What McLaren really got there hands on was the advantage Ferrari have been enjoying since they started their deep realationship with Bridgestone. Precise information on how to use those bridgestone to the best of the tyres ability. Correct me if i'm wrong but most of the info they got had to do with brake bais, suspension setup, the gas used to inflat their tyres & the weight bais of the car. All these influence the tyres.

Yes i know, the tyre for this year is of a different construction. But if the tyre being produced for all the teams to use has the same width, side wall height & number of groves then i would think that what's really changed is the compound used as the tyre has to last for longer. & who wants to tell me with a straight face that all the information gained from being the main partner of a tyre company fighting for bragging rights to a world championship didn't benifit them when the very same company is chosen as the exclusive tyre manifacturer.

Lets not be naive here, Bridgestone made tyres for Farrari. The other teams just used them cause they had no choice but to. How many stories were written detailing the troubles of the teams who used Bridgestone tyres? All the suspension redesigns that they had to go through to try & get those tyres to work while Farrari would fight & win WDCs' & WCCs'.

In the end i don't blame Farrari or McLaren. I look squarly @ the FIA. After all, if you have a tyre & car manifacturer working so closely together why would you award the same tyre company the contract to produce a spec tyre but not change the size, side wall height etc? They simply didn't do enough to make sure that everyone started on an even plain.

FLC, i see u think that the moving floor was just expoiting a loophole in the rules but to me it's not. The flexi wing was a brillant idea as it just took advantage of the abilites of the properties of the materials used to construct the cars. The moving floor simply breaks the sprit of the rules. The wheel rims i'll let pass but that moving floor simply wasn't sporting. The cars are meant to be a certain ride height.

As to claims that the FIA favours Farrari you be the judge. U must admit that they have made some strange calls when it comes to the Prancing Horse.

[FLC]

vblh,
Welcome to the forum, I'm sure you'll enjoy being an active member.

I respect your honesty about McLaren's punishment, but I disagree with some of your other points.

I can only speak about myself as a Ferrari fan, I wouldn't know what the others really think and feel. What bothers me the most is not the fact that McLaren had Ferrari information. Yes, I believe they have used it and benefited from it, as any other team on the grid would, but I wouldn't say the MP4-22 is a F2007 in disguise. What's worse in my eyes is that the team in question, or maybe not in question anymore, is led by a man who actually believes that he and his team have never done anything wrong, that they are the most honest and sincere of all others. That they are above all. That is the big deal. The big lie of the McLaren name exposed, or as Alonso have put it today when speaking about the same man and team:

Tell me what you brag about and I'll tell you what you are lacking.

McLaren had their hands on a lot more than just the tyres information. They had it coming constantly about Ferrari's advantages, strategies and everything else for months! They were practically consuming Ferraris' resources for the same amount of time.

Can you tell us with a straight face that McLaren won't have even the slightest advantage next year when they will be supplying the mandatory ECU? Didn't other teams report to have had trouble with it? BMW? Renault? Do you see any Ferrari fans around here crying foul about this? What exactly would you suggest the other teams should do? Work hard during the winter or spy after McLaren?

So the cars are meant to be a certain ride height and the wings? Aren't they meant to flex only a certain amount? Didn't many teams made them flex more under certain loads while making them rigid enough to pass the FIA tests? What exactly is the difference?

Yes, I admit, the FIA has made some strange calls, just like the one made yesterday in Hamilton's case. But hey, the rookie talent have learned from the best, you see he "didn't put a foot wrong" all weekend in Japan. Do I need to repeat on Alonso's words?

[mikep99]

vblh,
Welcome to the forum, I'm sure you'll enjoy being an active member.

I respect your honesty about McLaren's punishment, but I disagree with some of your other points.

I can only speak about myself as a Ferrari fan, I wouldn't know what the others really think and feel. What bothers me the most is not the fact that McLaren had Ferrari information. Yes, I believe they have used it and benefited from it, as any other team on the grid would, but I wouldn't say the MP4-22 is a F2007 in disguise. What's worse in my eyes is that the team in question, or maybe not in question anymore, is led by a man who actually believes that he and his team have never done anything wrong, that they are the most honest and sincere of all others. That they are above all. That is the big deal. The big lie of the McLaren name exposed, or as Alonso have put it today when speaking about the same man and team:

Tell me what you brag about and I'll tell you what you are lacking.

McLaren had their hands on a lot more than just the tyres information. They had it coming constantly about Ferrari's advantages, strategies and everything else for months! They were practically consuming Ferraris' resources for the same amount of time.

Can you tell us with a straight face that McLaren won't have even the slightest advantage next year when they will be supplying the mandatory ECU? Didn't other teams report to have had trouble with it? BMW? Renault? Do you see any Ferrari fans around here crying foul about this? What exactly would you suggest the other teams should do? Work hard during the winter or spy after McLaren?

So the cars are meant to be a certain ride height and the wings? Aren't they meant to flex only a certain amount? Didn't many teams made them flex more under certain loads while making them rigid enough to pass the FIA tests? What exactly is the difference?

Yes, I admit, the FIA has made some strange calls, just like the one made yesterday in Hamilton's case. But hey, the rookie talent have learned from the best, you see he "didn't put a foot wrong" all weekend in Japan. Do I need to repeat on Alonso's words?

All sounds logical to me FLC

[bizadfar]

1. But i do wonder why all the Ferrari fans are making such a big deal out of this. It's as if McLaren copied the F2007 wholesale & then beat them with their own car!!! Just looking at the McLaren you can see that they have been developing their design ideas for a few years now.

2. What McLaren really got there hands on was the advantage Ferrari have been enjoying since they started their deep realationship with Bridgestone. Precise information on how to use those bridgestone to the best of the tyres ability. Correct me if i'm wrong but most of the info they got had to do with brake bais, suspension setup, the gas used to inflat their tyres & the weight bais of the car. All these influence the tyres.

3. Yes i know, the tyre for this year is of a different construction. But if the tyre being produced for all the teams to use has the same width, side wall height & number of groves then i would think that what's really changed is the compound used as the tyre has to last for longer. & who wants to tell me with a straight face that all the information gained from being the main partner of a tyre company fighting for bragging rights to a world championship didn't benifit them when the very same company is chosen as the exclusive tyre manifacturer.

4. Lets not be naive here, Bridgestone made tyres for Farrari. The other teams just used them cause they had no choice but to. How many stories were written detailing the troubles of the teams who used Bridgestone tyres? All the suspension redesigns that they had to go through to try & get those tyres to work while Farrari would fight & win WDCs' & WCCs'.

5. FLC, i see u think that the moving floor was just expoiting a loophole in the rules but to me it's not. The flexi wing was a brillant idea as it just took advantage of the abilites of the properties of the materials used to construct the cars. The moving floor simply breaks the sprit of the rules. The wheel rims i'll let pass but that moving floor simply wasn't sporting. The cars are meant to be a certain ride height.

6. As to claims that the FIA favours Farrari you be the judge. U must admit that they have made some strange calls when it comes to the Prancing Horse.

1. Have you ever thought, hey Ferrari is doing this and that. So lets build on it and try something on top of and evolve what Ferrari has done.

2. lets go back to 2002. Ferrari heavily tested ALOT of km that year and in winter for the tyre war. the 2002 Michelins got SLAUGHTERED on every track except when temps were high such as Malaysia. Hungary also another very good example in the fast corners. Every team on Bridgestones even if it was a backmarker team still improved respective to their previous performance..
Now, 2003 that one was a good tyre war. But again development and testing of the tyres with Ferrari still benefitted other teams. Anyway Ferrari has the most resources anyway. If I was BAR that year, I'd think oh good, they are benefitting us some way indirectly at first.
2005, As you saw the tyres were pretty bad. Who were the other teams on it? Yet again Ferrari the only main player on bridgestones went through another major testing and development programme. It got better but not enough.
Now, 2006. Remember Toyota had trouble getting the tyres to work and have good heat in them? Bridgestone exclusively made for Toyota softer compounds.
All the above is totally irrelevant this year as all the tyres, compounds, are the same, its called a CONTROL.
What you're trying to criticize like other F1 "fans" is ridiculous because look at motogp. Same thing goes on their with michelins and no one complains...

3. This years tyre is 2004 construction. Compound have been simplified and made clear at the beginning of the season. They dont have to last longer at all, except on tracks where the difference in performance is so high between prime/option such as Canada.

4. LOL Show me the stories. The guys who were having BIG trouble were Renault and that could clearly be seen in Winter testing with their 2006 car. Mclaren's 2006 challenger was faster than Renault's championship winning 2006 car with the change of rubber. The advantage of data Ferrari had is soon nothing as the season gets a few races underway. And how would you explain BMW's rise?

5. The cars do not have to be a certain ride height... They can be any height/stiffness they want. But they most not erode the skid blocks. That's all. The moving floor didnt effect the skid blocks. And if you really think it was 100% illegal, then why did FIA subject a rule change in preparation for Malaysia? MAYBE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ILLEGAL AT THE TIME? Ever thought it through?

6. Thats because it's the FIA. Bunch of crazy unreliable people.

[effuno]

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type ... O_ID=40831#

some good news for all you mclaren fans(oh..i myself am one) ..wait for another 10-20 years and u might hear montezemolo confessing about ferrari having gained something through spying...






now. wait a minute before i'm hanged to death.. i dont mean to say ferrari did something.


it was not my intention to stir up a dead topic. .. just cudn't help posting the funny news...

[Belatti]

At least McLaren is going to pay only $50.000.000
I think it´s fair.
Maybe if they win WDC FIA would maintain the $100.000.000

What do you think?

[mini696]

At least McLaren is going to pay only $50.000.000
I think it´s fair.
Maybe if they win WDC FIA would maintain the $100.000.000

What do you think?

McLaren will be paying the full $100M, but in real terms they only have to hand over $50M because the FIA arent giving them the money for their constructors points (up to the time they were disqualified), only for it to be handed back to them the next day.

McLaren will be $100M out of pocket.

[meves]

With all this still going on and the press unlikely to let this go either, what do you guys think will happen next season with McLaren, do you think there will be protests about their car and will the FIA looking so strictly at the car affect their development.

Do you think they will not be able to use ideas that they legitimately came up with but are too close to Ferraris developments to be allow on the car? Basically will McLaren be competitive?

[Carlos]

I really don't think they will have a problem, McLaren has designed and built F1 for 40 years so they have a general knowledge base of their own that could result in another good car. The real problem for Ron Dennis is he'll have to take all those F!A inspectors out to lunch, experience the excrutiating agony of chatting them up, pretend to enjoy their company then have to pick up the cheque for lunch. Very painful, very painful indeed.

[NickT]

Errmm...... I was going to play Devils Advocate and ask who is the only team that is paid a retainer to race in F1 and has also just announced their partnership with A1GP, now run by messrs Mosley and Ecclestone, but what is the point this topic is 50 pages long!

So I guess the only real truth is, that regardless of the facts, there is always going to be a hard core fan base that will always argue their respective team's position. Which is great as it keeps us all entertained for as long as we have nothing else more interesting to debate

[meves]

I really don't think they will have a problem, McLaren has designed and built F1 for 40 years so they have a general knowledge base of their own that could result in another good car. The real problem for Ron Dennis is he'll have to take all those F!A inspectors out to lunch, experience the excrutiating agony of chatting them up, pretend to enjoy their company then have to pick up the cheque for lunch. Very painful, very painful indeed.

So that's what the constructors championship is awarded for!

[checkered]

Apologies all around

for continuing to post on this thread. Anyway, the soap opera/PR campaign generally known as the "spy story" is to continue with new installments (I wonder if any potential fines should henceforth be listed under "advertising and hospitality" in the teams' budgets?). Hey, we all knew these were coming. The studio, producers, directors, actors and writers repeatedly told us they were not done yet. I wonder if they have focus groups who preview the storylines? This is reminiscent of current Hollywood studio "sequel tactics": Film three movies, basically all at once to cut costs, release them a year or so apart and pretend they're largely separate entities (when the only meaningful difference is in the length of post-production and actors' promotional tours). Even the budgets are eerily similar - $100M a pop, give or take.

Oh dear, oh dear
FIA begins probe of McLaren 2008 car
FIA summons Renault over spying charges
Renault vow to cooperate with FIA