Comments on: Leaked dossier outlines McLaren case against Renault ‘spying’

By: Sri

Sri — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:15:50 +0000

Keith, agreed, that the car is made much earlier. However, there is a development cycle. The car at the end of the year, is NOT the same as it begins the year. They did speak about using at a test the gas that Ferrari used to inflate tyres and what not(most of which, we’ll never know, unless someone rats out Macca). They also discussed possibilities of testing weight distribution in simulators(this is there in the mails published, PDR & FA). That benefits this years cars, if not to a large extent, then to a certain extent. Its something that’s not really quantifiable. Ofcourse, 2008 cars are suspect and rightly so. Difficult to prove that used the information, but, engineering solutions are often ideas. They did buy/accept STOLEN intellectual property. Intentions can’t be all holy then, can they?

I agree, that it is to do with the fundamental difference in approach, that Macca are faster in slow stuff and Ferrari are faster in medium-high speed circuits. I would still put my money on Macca having advantaged.

By: Keith Collantine

Keith Collantine — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:06:08 +0000

The problem with that explanation, hob4bit, is no-one has proven that any aspects of the Ferrari design actually ended up on the McLaren.

You couldn’t pick two more conceptually different cars on the entire grid – look at how McLaren dominated on tight tracks like Monte-Carlo while Ferrari stretched their legs on fast courses like Spa and Silverstone.

Furthermore, the 2007 McLaren was completed months before Stepney started handing data to Coughlan. That’s why the FIA wanted to inspect the 2008 McLaren…

By: hob4bit

hob4bit — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:04:38 +0000

Hi, I guest there maybe soem truth in this morning. Mclaren stole Ferrari design which made them competitive this year. They lost because they were running two one man teams within a team.

Renault may have stole McLaren designs/info and that could explain why they were crap this year. They should have stole Ferrari data. Maybe stick to their own deisgn which worked well in 2005 and 2006.

By: sidepodcast.com

sidepodcast.com — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:17:40 +0000

okay, just managed to check back on the FIA transcripts from earlier this year. this is what ron dennis had to say when trying to play down the significance of a 780 page dossier:

“Any F1 car falls between 10,000 and 12,000 drawings. That leaves out tooling and all of the other components.”

now the boot’s on the other foot, 780 images are suddenly “the entire technical blueprint” of two years worth of car development.

gotta love that man.

By: ozzy

ozzy — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 08:51:12 +0000

Ooo George…sorry..I did not recognize You at the very
first moment…You are that George:-)

Try to read this…

http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/17844641__WMSC_Decision_130907.pdf

It is not very lenghty,and it is from the known source…

And this former Renault staffer…his days in F1 should be numbered…he dug his own grave…
He should have whisttleblown at the moment he realized
something improper is going on…meaning,during his
work at Renault…as Stepney…
What strikes me the most is that his arrival to McLaren coincides with the 2nd McLaren’s hearing…

Soon we will know much more…6th of December is not
far future

By: George

George — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 04:03:24 +0000

ozzy, you have missed the entire point our fearless leader Max has set. The FIA, under dear Max’s prodding, whacked McLaren NOT for using the Ferrari data or ideas, but for simply having POSSESSION of same. They have also set up McLaren for further penalty if any Ferrari “Ideas” show up in their 2008 car. We know how that will turn out, don’t we.

McLaren only found out about the Renault situation when a former Renault staffer came to work for McLaren and ratted out Renault.

That hypocrite Flava-Flav was ready to jump on McLaren’s bones for their “sins” but now wants foregivness for his own sins?

As they used to say in the 60′s “no justice, no peace”! And finally ozzy, your right about one thing; this is in no way similar to the Ferrari spygate affair, it’s much worse.

By: mike

mike — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:53:42 +0000

you no what? us as people ove this sort of stuff!!! im one of these peoplebecause i love to see the fights and struff that happen before the formula one season starts! so there for this wil 100% not spoil the f1 world!!!!!

less than 120 days to go!!!!! WWOOOOOHHOOOOO

i cant wait!

By: ozzy

ozzy — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:15:43 +0000

sidepodcast excellent point…

another thing to be discussed is why McLaren did not take immediate action if they believed that Renault is in posession of important data…

They went to public exactly on the eve of their 2nd hearing,and they started whole case quite late…

Another thing is that this is regular in F1…and Renault will easilly prove(as Newey stated yesterday)
that..and as last line of their defence they can open
many similar cases…

In McLaren Ferrari case,McLaren employee got info from
Ferrari employee,and the rest of the McLaren staff tried to benefit from it…

By: Silver Fisk

Silver Fisk — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:05:22 +0000

“33 files contain more than 780 individual drawings outlining the entire technical blueprint of the 2006 and 2007 McLaren F1 cars” on (11 * 1.44)=15.84 MB! Is this possible? Is it a soapbox car that McL is building?

By: ozzy

ozzy — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:00:37 +0000

George for christ sake on what grounds You think this is much serious then 1st spygate?

What kind of argument is that info was found on multiple computers on Renault…what is the diff. if it was stored on one or more computers…it was available…
and whether some unfair advantage is to have been gained or not is the only relevant information scrutinners are looking for…
For Your info, Ferrari’s data were printed out and found in Coughlan posession(other staff member were aware of that posession and …proven on 1st hearing…)
Does it mean according to Your logic that if Renault uses electronic format it is automatically ofense but
if McLaren uses printed format it is not?
Try to find FIA verdict on McLaren-Ferrari case and You will all see what was proven on 1st and what on the 2nd hearing…then You will see that on the later it was proven that McLaren tested using Ferrari’s data…
Does anyone of You know in what way all these technicians got in touch with McLaren’s data?
Did they test something or they were just aware
that one employee brought uselles info from McLaren…
This kind of explanation helped McLaren on 1st hearing…
In the mean time can somebody tell the british press to be more specific over source of info ,since this kind of source previously suggested 3 CDs,and now I see there are 11 floppy disks… very consistent and reliable…
I am disappointed that You allready give verdicts without hearing a word form Renault…this does not belong to 21st century…this is more like Wild West..

Anyway..whatever will be,this is by no means similar to the McLaren Ferrari case,this is almost identical as Ferrari Toyota plus that it is still not revealed
if these data were of any relevance…
I read FIA verdict from the 1st affair and I must say that this will be very important