FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Hank 29]

Here's a lot of straight talk from Max Mosley: he lists Ron Dennis's mistakes, says Prodrive probably won't be penalised for not competing, would have disqualified Hamilton and Alsonso, and a whole lot more:

http://www.theworldmotorsportmarketplac ... Mosley.htm

[texasmr2]

Excellent post and info that finally lay's to rest all the kaos as of late. Athough some of Max's past comment's may have been defined as biased and on the verge of dementia it seem's he still has a firm grasp of reality and what's best for F1 in the coming future.

[racechick]

Here's a lot of straight talk from Max Mosley: he lists Ron Dennis's mistakes, says Prodrive probably won't be penalised for not competing, would have disqualified Hamilton and Alsonso, and a whole lot more:

http://www.theworldmotorsportmarketplac ... Mosley.htm

Interesting article. Dont think Mosely is capable of straight talk. He's an aristocratic snake who will lie through his teeth to get his way. He says spying hasnt always gone on despite "a few people" saying it has. Thats bull poo!! And it wasnt a few people it was loads, particularly people in the business. Anyone read the forum article by his mate Bernie? Guess what........ He says spying has gone on forever and the FIA should keep out and leave it to the police. Great timimg Bernie! Are you getting worried about Renault? Where were your comments three months ago???? It should have gone to a court of law where it would have been laughed out as it was all circumstancial evidence.

[texasmr2]

Just my opinion but I think Max summed thing's up pretty well with this reply to 'The Paddock's' question concerning the McLaren/Ferrari fiasco:

Would the spy scandal have been less of a concern if it had not
dragged on for such a long time?

[quote="Max Mosely"]Well, it did. The whole thing should have been stopped before it even
started. Ron [Dennis] could have gone to Jean [Todt] immediately
after Australia and said: “Look, we asked the FIA about your floor
because there’s somebody at Ferrari giving us information, and
you ought to know that.â€

[Mikep99]

Here's a lot of straight talk from Max Mosley: he lists Ron Dennis's mistakes, says Prodrive probably won't be penalised for not competing, would have disqualified Hamilton and Alsonso, and a whole lot more:

http://www.theworldmotorsportmarketplac ... Mosley.htm

Great article Hank 29.
I think any unbiased person reading that article will find it a reasonable & logical read.

Here are another two I have found which also give a level headed look at the Bendy floor saga & Lewis and Kimi.

All three articles reinforce what I think & have been saying all along.

Of bendy floors and McLaren protests
Tuesday 30 Oktober at 16:34 : In the now very hot debate about whether or not McLaren is doing the right thing by appealing the stewards' "cool fuel" decision, as well as the debates about the punishment certain drivers failed to receive over the course of the season for numerous "small" transgressions, most punters in favour of McLaren are now returning to race one of 2007 - Melbourne.

"But look", they say "Ferrari raced with an illegal, felixible floor in Melbourne, and they got away with it!". They will further state that McLaren made their protest in a very sporting way, by seeking "clarification", rather than lodging a protest.

And yes, all of that is true, not to mention the fact that McLaren brought this issue to the attention of the FIA two days prior to the race - on March 16.

It's a pointless argument though.

Why? Because the FIA had, prior to all of this, declared Ferrari's floor legal. In other words, Ferrari had submitted the design to the FIA for scrutiny, as it had to, and been told it's OK to race with that floor.

Once the "clarification" was sought, the rules weren't changed either. All the FIA changed was their method of testing. This meant Ferrari's floor, which had been declared legal by the FIA, was suddenly illegal and they had to change a fundamental part of the design of their car before the next race. The effect was there for all to see at Malyasia, the next race, where McLaren took a 1-2.

So, is it fair to expect that a "clarification" sought two days before the start of a race, on the day of qualifying, can be properly investigated on race weekend? That it should result in an instruction to change the car before qualifying, or the race, starts? An instruction to change a part of a car that is, as far as the team has been told by the powers that be, legal? Is it fair for the team who sought the clarification to say that they will not appeal the result solely "in the interests of the sport"? Is it even plausible to call the result of the race into question at all, following a post-race change in how a regulation is measured? And following all of those questions, is it in the realms of sanity to compare the two situations? Then and now? To say that McLaren were disadvantaged by this episode?

The question of where McLaren obtained the information on which they based the action, of course, also remains.

Edu de Jager
DailyF1News.com

[quote]A MOST WORTHY CHAMPION
Friday 26 Oktober at 12:48 : Lewis Hamilton was supposed to take the title right? He came on to the scene and drove like a veteran almost from race 1. He was singularly impressive and, for the most part, very consistent. He was loved by his team. It was almost destined…

There are many reasons behind his performance this year of course - let’s briefly look at his past as an explanation, for those of you who still don’t know: Aged nine (or ten or eleven depending on which one of the millions of reports out there you choose to read), a boy walks up to none other than Ron Dennis, one of the most successful Team Chiefs in the sport, and tells him that he wants to drive for him one day. Now I don’t doubt that this probably happens to Ron on a fairly regular basis so no-one can be sure why this one was taken to heart so much, but it was – a connection was made and the intrepid Mr. Dennis took Lewis under his wing.

For the next ten-odd years, Lewis works hard with probably the ultimate inside man as his mentor. He is groomed for one thing and one thing only: Formula One. It was always the ultimate goal, the ultimate end. Is it really a surprise then, that he walked into F1 a roaring success? To anyone who really gave it any real thought, no.

Is it surprising that he attained this level of success this quickly? Frankly, yes, even to me. I predicted that, while Lewis would shine this year, he would not beat the level-headed Alonso. I could not, however, have predicted the sequence of events that followed during the course of the season. I could also not have predicted the intense level of arrogance from Lewis, nor could I have predicted the amount of leeway he would receive from the FIA, who have (yet again) been accused from numerous quarters of orchestrating the championship.

“Arrogance, you say?â€

[racechick]

Ron Dennis goes to Todt and says "Look , sorry but one of your chaps is sending one of our chaps technical information, he has hundreds of paged of it. He also knows all about your cheating floor."
Todt replies " You're joking. Well thanks for letting me know about that, You're a good bloke. We'll leave it at that then shall we."

MMMmm think Mosely is deluded and thinks everyone else might likewise be. To say the guy has a firm grasp onreality and our sport is safe with him is also laughable. This is the guy who cannot police his unclear rules, has technical change after technical change, has practically abolished overtaking and wants to run F1 like a chess match. F1 needs him gone.

[Martin]

Bernies interview is also interesting. he does not really seem to have the same view as Max over 'spygates' - http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews ... /7142.html

He also thinks that team principals should go to the police when these situations occure - NOT the FIA. Thats a fair point isn't it? After all stealing data and passing to a competitor, and receiving it are criminal activities.

[Hank 29]

It will be very interesting to see how the Renault business is handled.

[raithrover]

Yes, just read Bernie's viewpoint and he's been around F1 for longer and knows this has been going on for years. Blames lawyers and the team managers for not sorting it out when first highlighted.

[McLaren Fan]

Mosley does talk some sense in that article, however, there are several key things on which I would like to come back.

First, yes, McLaren could have done a few things different in 2007, however, hindsight is wonderful thing. I totally refute Mosley's claim that if McLaren had of come clean after the Australian Grand Prix the spy scandal would have been done and dusted given the FIA's previous form and the teams and people involved.

Next, Mosley doesn't say anything about the unprofessional manner in which the case was conducted. Let's assume McLaren were as guilty as sin, that still does not absolve the FIA of being professional, consistent, free from bias and organised.

Mosley also fails to mention the rules the organisation which he is charged with running simply invented. For instance, there never has been or is a rule which states teams cannot favour drivers in qualifying - not that McLaren were doing that anyway - and there was never was or is a rule stipulating teams must treat both drivers equally. This is even more funny when all of the other teams were doing similar things, most notable Ferrari who wiped the floor with everybody for years in that fashion.

His explanation over the Prodrive situation is equally farcical. Let's face it: The dogs on the street knew how they were going to operate. The FIA screwed up, again.

The article alludes to politics in several instances. For me that little motif threads the whole article together. Politicians each talk up their own side of the argument and without consulting the facts from the other side of the fence, you'd be inclined to believe what you were first told. Then we have the WMSC on which Ferrari have more representatives and, thus, voting rights than any other team.

Mosley is also keen on telling us about his legal background. Again, that's slightly ironic because McLaren's guilty verdict was based on ifs, buts, maybes, rumours, vendettas and grudges, flimsy evidence and supposition.

I'm sure there are other issues which spring up if I were to read the thing again in more detail. So, nice and informative article on the surface, however, a lot of things are swept under the carpet and concealed by fancy diction and an honest smile.

[Martin]

Mosley does talk some sense in that article, however, there are several key things on which I would like to come back.

First, yes, McLaren could have done a few things different in 2007, however, hindsight is wonderful thing. I totally refute Mosley's claim that if McLaren had of come clean after the Australian Grand Prix the spy scandal would have been done and dusted given the FIA's previous form and the teams and people involved.

Next, Mosley doesn't say anything about the unprofessional manner in which the case was conducted. Let's assume McLaren were as guilty as sin, that still does not absolve the FIA of being professional, consistent, free from bias and organised.

Mosley also fails to mention the rules the organisation which he is charged with running simply invented. For instance, there never has been or is a rule which states teams cannot favour drivers in qualifying - not that McLaren were doing that anyway - and there was never was or is a rule
stipulating teams must treat both drivers equally. This is even more funny when all of the other teams were doing similar things, most notable Ferrari who wiped the floor with everybody for years in that fashion.

His explanation over the Prodrive situation is equally farcical. Let's face it: The dogs on the street knew how they were going to operate. The FIA screwed up, again.

The article alludes to politics in several instances. For me that little motif threads the whole article together. Politicians each talk up their own side of the argument and without consulting the facts from the other side of the fence, you'd be inclined to believe what you were first told. Then we have the WMSC on which Ferrari have more representatives and, thus, voting rights than any other team.

Mosley is also keen on telling us about his legal background. Again, that's slightly ironic because McLaren's guilty verdict was based on ifs, buts, maybes, rumours, vendettas and grudges, flimsy evidence and supposition.

I'm sure there are other issues which spring up if I were to read the thing again in more detail. So, nice and informative article on the surface, however, a lot of things are swept under the carpet and concealed by fancy diction and an honest smile.

I agree with that M.F. Moseley has presided over a major incident in F1 for which he has been praised but, mainly, criticised. He has to defend and justify his position so its a sales job really. It probably campares with a dodgy salesman selling a dangerous car. Talk up the good bits(and there are some good bits in this) and ignor or distort the rest.

[bud]

good post McLaren fan

[Mikep99]

McLaren's guilty verdict was based on ifs, buts, maybes, rumours, vendettas and grudges, flimsy evidence and supposition.

This statement can also be applied to many things that Ferrari has & is accused of since the start of time.
No IF’s or But’s about it.

But I would add another two to the above list - Jealousy & Assumptions.
And U know what happens when you: ASSUME

[McLaren Fan]

McLaren's guilty verdict was based on ifs, buts, maybes, rumours, vendettas and grudges, flimsy evidence and supposition.

This statement can also be applied to many things that Ferrari has & is accused of since the start of time.
No IF’s or But’s about it.

But I would add another two to the above list - Jealousy & Assumptions.
And U know what happens when you: ASSUME

I don't think that's true at all. Several people on this forum have proven in recent months how Ferrari has shafted the rest of the teams. To keep on the topic in question, examine the events of this season. McLaren are penalised for supposedly favouring Hamilton over Alonso and have an inspector at the final race of the season to ensure things are equal between them. Meanwhile, other teams, most notably Ferrari, have a number one and number two driver policy and have given one driver priority over the other in terms of equipment, time and strategy. Why weren't these teams penalised? Why was there a massive outcry about McLaren's punishment on this matter in the Formula One community? You'll believe whatever you want/are hypnotised into anyway. If you tell a lie for a certain period of time you'll believe it is true.

Jealous of Ferrari? No. Ferrari may be the oldest team in the sport, a nice touch but so what? What did they do all of those years? The only team I come close to being jealous of is Lotus. They did ten times more than any other team in advancing Formula One. Another thing, Ferrari don't have the monopoly on passion. Overall, I'm extremely comfortable and proud of my views on Formula One and my allegiance to McLaren.

[Mikep99]

You'll believe whatever you want/are hypnotised into anyway. If you tell a lie for a certain period of time you'll believe it is true.

McLaren Fan you’re on a roll.
You've been spinning your lie for a while now & it looks like you have well and truly convinced yourself.
Good on u, you’ve just proven your own point

Several people on this forum have proven in recent months how Ferrari has shafted the rest of the teams.

I must have blinked, I did not read anything close to proving it except for a few posts which were "based on ifs, buts, maybes, rumours, vendettas and grudges, flimsy evidence and supposition + Jealousy & Assumptions"