F1 2007

[Zoid]

Well, that's true I suppose. FIA needs to get its **** together and start being consistent.

[Zoid]

Should McLaren appeal the Brazilian GP result?

There has been some talk in the last couple of days about whether McLaren is correct in going ahead with its appeal against the decision not to exclude the Williams and BMW Saubers cars from the result of the 2007 Brazilian Grand Prix. If the cars are excluded, then Lewis Hamilton would win the World Championship.

Some have criticised McLaren, arguing that the team is a bad loser and is now trying to kick over the board because it has lost the game. That is an understandable argument if this action is taken at face value but one has to put the appeal into a proper context if one is going to get the full picture. This has been a year in which - rightly or wrongly - McLaren has felt itself under attack from the FIA. Throughout the year there have been a series of events where the team's integrity has been called into question, culminating in the loss of all of its Constructors' Championship points and a fine of $100m, based on evidence that was at best circumstantial. The damage to McLaren's image has been considerable and there is a decent argument that a great deal of that damage has been encouraged by leaks to the media from other parties involved. McLaren has taken most of this on the chin. There is no argument that a McLaren employee was involved in receiving information that belonged to Ferrari but the evidence that any of this information was used (or will be used) is flimsy at best. And, as insiders in F1 know, there are far worse examples of such things which could come to light in the future.

McLaren's attitude has been that it should make the most of a bad situation and try to ensure that similar things do not happen again. Whether one chooses to accept this interpretation is, inevitably, a subjective decision. The English media, which knows the team well, is largely supportive of McLaren. The foreign press, which has more input from Ferrari and Fernando Alonso and less understanding of Ron Dennis and his people, believes otherwise.

What is clear in this latest flare-up is that it was not initiated by McLaren. The FIA Technical Delegate discovered the problem in Brazil and reported it to the FIA Stewards. Jo Bauer was simply doing his job.

It is a very serious issue, which could affect the outcome of the World Championship, and while it is clear that there was no intention to cheat and the effect of the illegality may be small, there are rules and these ought to be respected.

Thus the decision of the stewards to reject the findings of the FIA Technical Delegate based on an apparent vagueness in the measuring process was one that raised a lot of questions.

"The team believes that the FIA has, in written clarification of the Technical Regulations and in its minutes of two Formula 1 Team Manager meetings, made clear how it would interpret and manage the regulations and procedures associated with the control of fuel temperatures," McLaren said in a statement after its appeal was announced. "This process was followed in the normal manner by the FIA Technical Delegate following the Brazilian Grand Prix and the irregularities were reported by him to the Stewards of the meeting. Consequently the team does not understand the justification as described in the decision published late on Sunday evening."

Sadly, written clarifications and minutes of team managers meetings are not public documents so it is hard to know exactly what constitutes the regulations in this case.

That in itself is an indictment of the system that exists. If there are rules why are they not written down and published in a sensible form which can be easily understood by everyone, not just those with access to the paperwork? And, perhaps more importantly, were the stewards aware of these clarifications and minutes?

Does one arm of the FIA know what the other is doing?

Sadly, these are not the only questions that arise as a result of the World Championship outcome.

There are also questions about the way that the FIA handled the question of the Ferrari floor at the Australian Grand Prix. The device was deemed to be illegal a few days after the Australian GP. This clarification was not deemed to be retroactive despite the fact that McLaren alerted the FIA's Charlie Whiting to the problem on March 16 - two days before the Melbourne race - using the protocol that is employed of seeking an opinion from the FIA. This is considered to be a better way to solve problems than by using public protests. Whiting did not rule on the matter until after the event. Thus McLaren could have protested the Ferrari in Melbourne and Ferrari might have been excluded but the British team did not do so "in the interest of motor sport". It has now paid a very high price for trying to avoid a controversial start to the season.

The details of what has happened in the past are not of much use because they will change nothing unless one day all of this goes into civil law, but it does suggest that in the future no team can afford to baulk at such action. If trying to behave in a sporting manner creates the possibility of losing a World Championship, there is no team in F1 that would hold back.

Formula 1 teams exist to win and they do not like losing, particularly if they feel they have been harshly treated.

McLaren explains in its press release about the appeal that "the significance of this matter and its timing is, of course, regrettable" and says that it wishes to win races and championships on the track but adds that if there has been an irregularity, "the matter must be properly examined to ensure that the rules are applied".

McLaren also makes it quite clear that it is not questioning the integrity of BMW Sauber and Williams.

"We know, without even enquiring, that neither team would have sought to achieve a performance advantage by such an irregularity and that the situation could only have arisen as the consequence of an operational error within the team on the day."

Is this all just so much puff to disguise a naked desire to win the World Championship at any cost?

One can argue that case if it suits one's purposes.

From where we are sitting, McLaren's response seems rather restrained. If the team really wanted the World Championship that badly and believes that it has a case, it would stop messing about and go to a civil court and get things sorted out using real world justice rather than the somewhat idiosyncractic ways of F1. McLaren has not gone down that route because it knows that in the pursuit of justice, the sport could be seriously damaged. Others say that there are no such noble motives and that McLaren does not have a case that would stand up outside the sport. The only way to find that out would be to try it and there are times when one wonders whether it might not be a good idea to force the sport to put its structures to the test. At the same time it is clear that the wisest route would be for those involved to work quietly to find a way to change without the need for QCs and screaming headlines.

The big question is whether those involved are capable of such a sensible solution or whether egos, vested interests and past histories have created a situation in which such things are simply impossible.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19815.html

[CerberusIV]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7070564.stm

Motorsport boss Max Mosley has said Lewis Hamilton could have a negative effect on Formula One if he is as successful next year as he was in 2007.

Max Mosley is clearly feeling the heat and worried that someone may challenge his, and the FIA's, monopoly on being a negative influence on F1.

[Cort Haus]

What a toe-rag that Moseley is.

[Zoid]

And to no ones surprise...

Alonso and McLaren part ways

In a move that seemed inevitable, two-time World Champion Fernando Alonso will not drive for McLaren-Mercedes next season. The team released an announcement stating that following a meeting with Alonso it was agreed that it would be best for all concerned to end the relationship.

Fernando Alonso said, "Since I was a boy I had always wanted to drive for McLaren, but sometimes in life things do not work out. I continue to believe that McLaren is a great team. Yes, we have had our ups and downs during the season, which has made it extra-challenging for all of us, and it is not a secret that I never really felt at home. I know there have been suggestions of favouritism within the team and people say a lot of things in the heat of battle, but in the end I was always provided with an equal opportunity to win. Today's decision allows all of us to focus on 2008, and I wish the team, Vodafone, Banco Santander, Mutua Madrilena and all the other team Partners who I have worked closely with during the year, the best for the future."

McLaren team principal Ron Dennis said, "Everybody at Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, especially McLaren's Spanish Partners Banco Santander and Mutua Madrilena and the team's title partner Vodafone, want to wish Fernando all the best for the future. He is a great driver but for some reason the combination of Vodafone McLaren Mercedes and Fernando has not really worked out, and in the end we reached a stage where none of us could find a way to move forward. We all believe that our joint decision to part company is for the best, and we will now continue to focus on our 2008 World Championship challenge."

[Cort Haus]

So now it's Renault's turn to have a spy scandal. What will the FIA do this time?

And Ross Brawn to Honda - .

[Zoid]

If they give Renault a lesser punishment the ****'s really gonna hit the fan.

And Ross Brawn indeed...

[Cort Haus]

If they do give Renault the same punishment then Renault might pack their bags and leave. Mad Max has painted himself into a corner.

[Zoid]

I don't think Max cares if Renault leaves. He's proven time and again that he doesn't care about the sport...

[Krill]

Renault

Why did they have to be cheaters as well

[Cort Haus]

Everyone cheats all the time. It's so much 'part of the sport' that they don't think about it. If they thought about it, why would that idiot Coughlin take the Ferrari designs to a public print shop to duplicate them?

Every time someone changes teams, they take info about the previous team's designs with them. Ross Brawn will be taking Ferrari info to Honda, but in his head. That's normal, but if he took something on paper it would be illegal.

Ferrari were running a front wing last year that was designed at McLaren by a guy who went from McLaren to Ferrari.

[Krill]

It isn't insider knowledge, it's work experience

[Krill]

Maclaren failed then in their "attempt" to screw over the other teams...

[Zoid]

It was doomed to fail from the start. Noone expected this to go through...

[Zoid]

From grandprix.com

The FIA Appeal Court decision

The decision of the FIA International Court of Appeal - and the way it was handled - has done nothing to add to the credibility of the FIA. Not that it was expected to do. The appeal process was something that the FIA wanted to avoid because it would either show that an FIA official (Jo Bauer) had made a mistake in the way in which he reported the temperatures of the fuel in the refuelling machines at Interlagos, or that the rules are in such a mess on this matter that no-one knew what was right and what was wrong. It is arguable which is worse. McLaren said, and some believed them, that this was not about the World Championship. They argued that it was about knowing what constitutes the rules. Well, yes, in part. It was also about putting the FIA in an embarrassing spot with a very public issue but given what has been done to the team this summer that is perhaps understandable.

The FIA chose to orchestrate matters in such a way as to make sure that the Court of Appeal decision received very little coverage. The first reports of the result came on the Pitpass.com website in the middle of the afternoon. Was that a guess? The website, a sensible one in F1 terms, claimed that it had come "from a very good source". And it was right. So if the result was known at that time of the day, one is led to ask, why did the FIA delay an announcement until the middle of the evening?

The explanation of why the appeal was ruled inadmissable was not given, indeed not even McLaren knew the details on Friday night.

"We have not yet seen the text of the FIA International Court of Appeal decision," said Martin Whitmarsh of McLaren. "And we hope that clarification is provided. It's important to stress that the FIA Stewards' inquiry at the Brazilian Grand Prix was not triggered by any action from McLaren, but by a report written and made public by the FIA Technical Delegate, which drew the FIA Stewards' attention to what we regarded as a clear regulation breach on the part of BMW-Sauber and Williams. Our appeal was merely a logical and procedural step in the process begun by the FIA Technical Delegates written report. We hope that this fuel temperature issue does not remain unresolved in Formula 1 next year but we look forward to working with the FIA and the teams on clarifying matters to avoid a similar situation occurring again."

Williams, which was not happy with the McLaren appeal because of the implications involved (and perhaps because McLaren has been sniffing around Nico Rosberg of late) greeted the decision and indicated that "the appeal of the Stewards decision was found to be inadmissible as McLaren failed to follow the correct and clearly documented protest procedure".

The rights of appeal are defined in the FIA Statutes and one of these items says that appeals against decisions by the stewards of a meeting can be lodged by "one of the parties concerned". One can argue that McLaren was not involved in the supposed offence but at the same time one can argue that McLaren was concerned because the result of the World Championship might rest upon the result. That seems like a decent argument that McLaren was concerned. Perhaps there are other contradictory references to the right to appeal elsewhere in the FIA paperwork but one would probably argue that the statutes of the organisation - the basic rules of the association - would over-rule any lesser arguments.

The other point that needs to be answered is why it took 36 hours to decide that the appeal was not admissable. There was an hour of argument at the beginning of the case about this and then the case went ahead and everyone listened the evidence from the parties involved. Is it normal in a judicial process to decide that a case is inadmissable after the case has run its entire course? Would normal legal processes be pursued in such a fashion?

It would have been so much better for the FIA to have either thrown out the case at the beginning or to have addressed the issues fully and given a clear answer about the rights and wrongs involved.

The Williams statement did however point out that "there is no specified source for the ambient temperature measurement, and there is no homologated and sealed sensor for measuring fuel temperature either in the fuel rigs or on-board the cars" and added that its arguments were "consistent with all of the clarifications and opinions related to fuel temperatures expressed in Team Managers' Meetings and other such forums".

The problem has gone away. But the decision and, perhaps more obviously, the way it was delivered, gave the impression that it was something that needed to be shoved under the carpet.

The FIA has expended a great deal of effort in recent years trying to make people have more faith in the Court of Appeal. This is a good thing because it had little credibility until a few years ago. There are still questions to be answered: why were two of four judges the same names that we have seen over and over again over the years? This, the FIA explains, is because of availability. But then one must ask why judges are picked who never appear? Surely the availability should be one of the qualifications for the job, to ensure that people do not end up asking such questions. Or perhaps there should be some unimpeachable chief justice. The system of stewarding in F1 received a huge credibility boost when Tony Scott-Andrews appeared on the scene. You only had to meet the man to know that he was straight and that his decision would be based on the best interests of the sport. The Court of Appeal could use such a figure.

The FIA is very touchy on the subject of its governance. This is understandable. But the best response is to make decisions that follow the norms of legal processes and to change the system which allows critics to ask perfectly reasonable questions about how things are done.