Renault race-fixing at Singapore 2008

[Chaparral]

Miguel that post is priceless love it

The only footage I could find below doesnt really tell you much except that Piquet looped the car out of the corner from the dirty part of the circuit - unless there is concrete proof in the form of telemetry data showing Piquet deliberately put the boot in on the throttle and there is some other evidence such as he was told over the pit radio etc - then circumstantial hearsay shouldnt wash - I think its a beat up to be honest but we will all await the star chamber verdict

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbMZ7bs7e3o

[xpensive]

Did I actually write something to that effect? Think not.

No, you didn't. But you seemed to suggest that the WMSC agenda and decision making isn't consistent with regard to the gravity of the transgression. Others have spoken of a "kangaroo court". Such criticism is a bit harsh for my taste. It isn't an easy job for the WMSC to govern F1 and I thought they did not do such a bad job the last years.

So why did you insinuate that I did?

[WhiteBlue]

Did I actually write something to that effect? Think not.

No, you didn't. But you seemed to suggest that the WMSC agenda and decision making isn't consistent with regard to the gravity of the transgression. Others have spoken of a "kangaroo court". Such criticism is a bit harsh for my taste. It isn't an easy job for the WMSC to govern F1 and I thought they did not do such a bad job the last years.

So why did you insinuate that I did?

I, didn't. I just asked for clarification.

[gcdugas]

Did I actually write something to that effect? Think not.

No, you didn't. But you seemed to suggest that the WMSC agenda and decision making isn't consistent with regard to the gravity of the transgression......

WB... he wrote about the shifting caprice of favoritism.,,,, see below...

What is reason or not seems to be decided solely by MrM, as is seriousness and punishment for each "offence".

This can also shift from time to time depending on the teams status with the FIA. Two years ago McLaren was slammed for spying, while Flavio's team got away with murder in a rather similar scenario.

Then WB continues his post....

...... Others have spoken of a "kangaroo court". Such criticism is a bit harsh for my taste. It isn't an easy job for the WMSC to govern F1 and I thought they did not do such a bad job the last years.

Well they should refer to it as a kangaroo court... remember Tuned Mass Dampers? that is a crock, they are no more "movable aero devices" than is the man in the moon. That should have never even gone to court. A TMD is no different that the "third shock", an "inerter", or even the regular shock absorber. And remember it is not the WMSC that decides what goes before the high and mighty council but the FIA decides. So the reign of the present FIA regime (read Max Mosley) comes into view. And they have certainly lost all credibility. Spa 2008, tire heating ovens are "blankets", wheel hub caps are "homogeneous metal", Fernando ruled to "hinder Massa at Monza in 2006 quali" and resulting grid penalty among just a few... but they "did not do such a bad job the last years".

Having said all that, Renault could be guilty as sin or lilly white. We just can't tell. Lets see what the FIA has got. I agree that it must be something other than testimony of disgruntled employees. Telemetry can only tell so much and even a spike in throttle or brake doesn't reveal intent conclusively enough. Now if NP taped any phone calls when negotiating to keep his 2009 drive, or any interesting texts or emails... then that is evidence I can accept. But it must be something of that order. Supposedly coded radio messages such as "Fernando's stop went OK" or "Ckeck you oil temp" is not conclusive enough for "the gravity of the charges" as someone put it.

OK so we will just have to wait and see. If however the FIA is shown to yet again dragged another matter before the WMSC like the TMD, then he should be stripped of his future FIA Senate seat and banished from entering the grounds any and all FIA sanctioned events in the future and forbidden from working for any team, media outlet or other party that has an FIA media or pitpass. And likewise, if Renault is found guilty the penalty should be firm with those who provably participated being suitably reprimanded or banned according to the proportion of their participation and culpability.

I remember a race when Schumi crashed his car into a barrier and then limped his car back onto the racing line and all the TV commentators were commending his awareness and quick thinking because it made the SC come out to the detriment of his rival.. ?Mika or JV? It is a fuzzy memory but I know it happened. Maybe someone here can remember the exact race.

Nevertheless, that being said, and with Schumi's 1994 "option 13" illegal TC software being discovered, along with his 1997 JV crash stunt.... F1 sure has a checkered past and it greatest living hero is certainly no saint.

How come MS gets a free ride, even a commendation, when he moved his injured car deliberately into the racing line to park it? Isn't that "race fixing" as much as what Renault are accused, and I STRESS the word... ACCUSED of doing? Where was the chorus saying to throw the book at Schumi for this? Just a little perspective...

[gcdugas]

Concerning the "practice attempt to spin" on the warm up lap seen HERE

Wow, if Renault did actually set up the crash etc, imagine how pissed they'd be if Jr binned it before the race even began! That was very close to hitting the wall.

[kilcoo316]

Please observe the context. I was talking about historical decisions and not the Renault case.

It seemed pretty clearl to me you were talking about the Renault case.


Reading back, and I still come to the same conclusion. Perhaps it is your writing style.

[WhiteBlue]

This Renault thing is a bit different to a tuned mass damper in my view. It is about sporting behavior and cheating. More like the BAR fuel tank story and Stepneygate.

The WMSC, btw did not make the decision in the mass damper case (and also not in the Monza qualifying case). That was the ICA. There is a significant difference between those two bodies.

To me the WMSC sems to have a decent track record in cheating cases.

[xpensive]

To my mind, with Michael Schumacher, the concept of sporting behaviour have been modified substanially. Unfortunately.

[Rob W]

It's interesting that Massa has come out now and said he thought the crash was odd at the time.

Talking of incidents at this race.... I recall that Massa ran off the road at the same race and when he came back onto the track he basically caused another car to crash (as it was on a corner). Immediately I thought it warranted a penalty.

[adam2007]

It's interesting that Massa has come out now and said he thought the crash was odd at the time.

Talking of incidents at this race.... I recall that Massa ran off the road at the same race and when he came back onto the track he basically caused another car to crash (as it was on a corner). Immediately I thought it warranted a penalty.

well you thought wrong

[ISLAMATRON]

Yep, Massa caused Bourdais to crash if I remember correctly, that incident, and the BS fuji penalty in the MAssa/Bourdais coming together may have prematurely put Seb's F1 career to rest.

[bill shoe]

I think we can agree Piquet almost certainly did it on purpose. If/how/when it needs to be the subject of an official FIA inquiry is another matter. The event largely speaks for itself and I do not want the FIA getting involved in more vaugely defined "fraudulent conduct" charges.

Look at it this way-- It is also clear that at the last race of the 2007 season (Brazil) Massa became slower before his last pit stop so that Raikkonen could "pass" him during the stops. This gave the win and championship to Raikkonen, a much more significant outcome than Alonso taking a Singapore win in 2008. Do we think the FIA should investigate Ferrari for this? Everyone, and I mean everyone, agrees Massa intentionally gave the win to his teammate.

If you think the FIA should investigate Piquet/Alonso then surely you must advocate the FIA going back and investigating Massa/Raikkonen, yes?

[Miguel]

I think we can agree Piquet almost certainly did it on purpose.

No, we can't. We've seen Piquet crashing quite a few other times. Why were the other mistakes and this one on purpose? A more agreeable point seems to be that Piquet is less talented than Alonso. So what happens when you are given a difficult car (fact) that eats its tires fast (fact until Spa, I think), with a lot of onboard fuel (fact due to poor qualy efforts) and try to drive it as fast as you probably more talented teammate (supposition, with strong hints)?

Singapore was an incredibly slippery place. It is worth mentioning that everybody was expecting at least a safety car in Valencia (F1 was the only race where it didn't happen) and it was similar in Singapore. There were another two accidents, and one of them also triggered a safety car. So unless you're on the first or last few laps of the race, someone is bound to be benefitted. In 2008, out of 9 retirements of Piquet, 7 were due to accident. 7 races out of a total 18, or 39%. In street circuits, this rate increases to... erm... well, if you cont Canada as a street circuit (it partialy is), then it is 60% (Aus, Mon, Sin, brake failure in Canada and finished in Valencia). 2009 has been better for him, with 2 accident-related retirements in 10 races, but in China he didn't exactly shine.

I personally don't believe this is all due to driving ability. Pressure, a difficult car and a difficult teammate are important parts of the equation to consider. However, with this curriculum, it is compulsory that someone, some day, will benefit from it. And it can benefit your teammate.

If you think the FIA should investigate Piquet/Alonso then surely you must advocate the FIA going back and investigating Massa/Raikkonen, yes?

Can you tell me what Alonso has to do with this? In any case, supposing that a multimillion organisation (Ferrari) will have one employee (Massa) working against another (Raikkonen) with a possible result of several millions lost for that organisation, or not achieving a goal that is within reach is naïve at best.

Else, you may also support penalising McLaren and Hamilton when Kovalainen let him pass in Hockenheim 2008. Well, that would give Piquet his madien F1 victory, wouldn't it?

[Motornic]

Piquet crashed more than Windows 95. And did they even have to ask him? On the warm up lap, I would have been taking bets in the garage on what lap he would bury it. All the cars were bottoming pretty severely the whole race too. If he did it on purpose, then he is a hack. If he didn't, then he is a liar.

No matter how you look at it, the whole matter just feels like a bizzare comedy. And If the fix was in, who exactly pulled it off? Had to be on the engineering side;

- Flavio is a salesman, not Ross Brawn mastern tactician, Piquet said himself, Flav "knows nothing"
- Alonso was half delirious after the race and could barely stand up

How did JPM get that lap at Monza so fast? Well it was BMW with the candlestick in the conservatory, naturally...

Barrichello won at Hockenheim in 2000 from starting 18th. He must have used tires injected with steroids.

How DID Michael Schumacher win 5 consecutive titles whilst nary breaking a sweat in the cockpit? Well that's impossible, he must have cheated. And on occasion, maybe he did .

[WhiteBlue]

To my mind, with Michael Schumacher, the concept of sporting behaviour have been modified substanially. Unfortunately.

What about Senna and Prost? Driving each other off the track wasn't exactly new when Michael hit the scene. Blind eye?