Kati

Renault Under Investigation?

600 posts in this topic

How the f$%& are Bernie and Max responsible for the fact that two of the biggest teams in F1, MClaren and Renault are f&*king cheats? PEople like Ron Dennis, Alonso, Piquet, Flavio have destroyed the sport more than B & M could even if they tried.

"FIA adviser: Nelson Piquet Jnr says that he was asked by you to cause a deliberate crash. Is that true?

Symonds: Nelson had spoken to me the day before and suggested that. That's all I'd really like to say."

And I suppose it's one giant coincidence that that is exactly what happened??

I agree with the manes mentioned above,

But you do fail to add some names, which for sure You will never agree with..:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He should be sentenced to work in Renault's pit changing tires or holding the fuel rig for at least five year or until Piquet Jr wins a F1 race whichever comes first.

I would suggest the later.:naughty:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offering Pat Symonds immunity does not guarantee that he will 'spill the beans'. He is immensely loyal to the team and Flavio. This is basically a war of words, allegation and innuendo. The FIA have nothing in terms of hard evidence and never will have unless, Alonso or a senior member of the team comes out and supports Piquets's claims. I have known Pat for a number of years and I find it hard to imagine, that he would even contemplate becoming involved in such a horrendous scenario. If he has, it would be my guess that he would retire rather than drop the team in the mire. No wonder Ferrari are sitting on the fence with regard to Kimi - if Nando in implicated in Crashgate, the Scuderia will probably steer well clear of him for a year or two. At this time, they could do a lot worse than sign Luizzi, especially after the way he handled himself in Practice, Quali and the race at Monza. At least he will have his heart and soul in the job. They need an extraordinary car with an extraordinary driver team if they are to win another Championship and for my money, Kimi isn't up to the job.

Ah...this interests me. From the outside, Pat seemed the exact oppposite of Flav. Pat always struck me as a rather nice, decent person. So, do you think he could have planned all this? What is your theory about how the events developed?

As for the immunity thing, I don't think Pat will say anything, unless subject to enormous pressure from the FIA (something we can't rule out, given the level this war has attained)In such case, they will really have nothing. Not that it matters much as far as the WSMC veredict is concerned, but it might prove costly when the courts of law and attorneys get in the middle.

I find all this completely non-sensical. Why would they do this. Why did they half admitted culpability when a frontal denial since the beggining would have put NPJr and Mosley in a rather awkward position? Why? Why? Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah...this interests me. From the outside, Pat seemed the exact oppposite of Flav. Pat always struck me as a rather nice, decent person. So, do you think he could have planned all this? What is your theory about how the events developed?

As for the immunity thing, I don't think Pat will say anything, unless subject to enormous pressure from the FIA (something we can't rule out, given the level this war has attained)In such case, they will really have nothing. Not that it matters much as far as the WSMC veredict is concerned, but it might prove costly when the courts of law and attorneys get in the middle.

I find all this completely non-sensical. Why would they do this. Why did they half admitted culpability when a frontal denial since the beggining would have put NPJr and Mosley in a rather awkward position? Why? Why? Why?

I must admit, this is the bit that I find a bit perplexing. The only thing I can think of is that some other evidence exists that Renault know will come to light. Otherwise, as you say, why would they just not respond with 'nope, we have absolutely no idea what Jr is talking about'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit, this is the bit that I find a bit perplexing. The only thing I can think of is that some other evidence exists that Renault know will come to light. Otherwise, as you say, why would they just not respond with 'nope, we have absolutely no idea what Jr is talking about'.

My guess, too. On the other hand, if there is more incriminating evidence, and Mosley knows that Flav and Pat know, then is strange that he didn't "leak" it to the press like he has done with almost everything he had so far.

It is sad in any case for the whole sport. Again, whether it was Pat's or Flavio's or Nelsinho's idea, F1 took another blow. :(

On the bright side, though, Del Potro beat Fed for the US Open woooohoo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess, too. On the other hand, if there is more incriminating evidence, and Mosley knows that Flav and Pat know, then is strange that he didn't "leak" it to the press like he has done with almost everything he had so far.

It is sad in any case for the whole sport. Again, whether it was Pat's or Flavio's or Nelsinho's idea, F1 took another blow. :(

On the bright side, though, Del Potro beat Fed for the US Open woooohoo!

I am just waiting for Nando's name to be dragged into this mess!:naughty:

Quite surprised the Piquets were actually prepared to come forward - Mosley

mosley_1.jpgFIAPresident Max Mosley admits that the crash of Nelson Piquet Jr. duringlast year's Singapore Grand Prix does appear to be suspicious. OnMonday, Renault will face the World Motor Sport Council over therace-fix scandal.

Max Mosley declared to the British newspaper 'The Guardian':"Certainly the data from the car indicated that something very unusualhad happened on the corner where he crashed, according to the expertswho look at these things, so there was enough there to make itunthinkable not to investigate. This week Renault will send in writtendocuments but the actual hearing of their defence is next Monday."

The FIA President also admitted in the interview that gossipsurrounding the incident had already reached the FIA two or threemonths ago, but due to the lack of evidence, the governing bodycouldn't act on it.

"Two or three months earlier I'd heard this allegation was floatingaround. Of course, there was nothing one could do then because therewas no evidence, it was all rumour and hearsay; so I knew theallegation existed but, yes, I was quite surprised they were actuallyprepared to come forward and make it.

"Nelson Piquet Sr. came to see me after the Hungarian Grand Prix inlate July and said all this had happened, so I listened to him and said'Well, if Nelson makes a sworn statement then obviously we'llinvestigate it.' The father arranged for that to happen. We thenstarted to look at all the on-board data and all the recordings we'vegot of everything that happened in the car."

We have to add that at the Hungarian Grand Prix, the Piquet-clanalready knew that it was going to be Nelsinho's final race for theFrench outfit. Nelsinho gave his statement to the FIA only four daysafter being dropped by Renault, so despite the fact that theallegations might be true (let's wait for the hearing next week), thissmells like revenge of the Piquet-clan. A revenge plan that not onlydamages Formula One and Renault, but especially the young driverhimself.

http://www.f1technical.net/news/13340

Edited by abbas_gear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit, this is the bit that I find a bit perplexing. The only thing I can think of is that some other evidence exists that Renault know will come to light. Otherwise, as you say, why would they just not respond with 'nope, we have absolutely no idea what Jr is talking about'.

I don't know if I got your idea correctly, what you mean here is that if everything about this is true but there are not much evidence they should have lied about it? or you mean if this is a false statement from NP they should have said the truth (obviously) and deny any involvement or any knowledge about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just waiting for Nando's name to be dragged into this mess!:naughty:

he will be unless they want to waive him in order to keep him in the sport, which it make sense went you think about money, but he is as guilty as everyone else in this case, not only by the rules but also because this was done to make HIM win a race, he was the motive of all this drama, he knew about it, he most have knon about it to make the strategy work (even when many people here want to think differently) he was in an awkward strategy in a difficult to pass circuit and he didn't question the strategy? a light fuel load under this conditions? to fall to the final places and behind a lot of cars with more fuel than him (he was suppose to be in a three stopper) that just doesn't make sense a three stop strategy is even difficult for those in the first places, so I don't have any doubt that he knew it and he was part of this, what I don't know is why they don't have him as a main suspect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he will be unless they want to waive him in order to keep him in the sport, which it make sense went you think about money, but he is as guilty as everyone else in this case, not only by the rules but also because this was done to make HIM win a race, he was the motive of all this drama, he knew about it, he most have knon about it to make the strategy work (even when many people here want to think differently) he was in an awkward strategy in a difficult to pass circuit and he didn't question the strategy? a light fuel load under this conditions? to fall to the final places and behind a lot of cars with more fuel than him (he was suppose to be in a three stopper) that just doesn't make sense a three stop strategy is even difficult for those in the first places, so I don't have any doubt that he knew it and he was part of this, what I don't know is why they don't have him as a main suspect?

Sherlock, you ain't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if I got your idea correctly, what you mean here is that if everything about this is true but there are not much evidence they should have lied about it? or you mean if this is a false statement from NP they should have said the truth (obviously) and deny any involvement or any knowledge about it?

What I am saying is that initially I thought this situation of the safety car was a just a convenient consequence being exploited by the Piquets. However, if that was the case, then when Pat was questioned about it, I would have expected him to say 'nope, no idea what you're talking about'. So obviously, something is not quite right.

The fact that Renault seem to be going down the 'it wasn't our idea, it was Piquet's idea', would seem to suggest that there is some evidence that they can't hide or stop from being revealed, whatever it may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...aaaaaaand... she takes the bait!!!!

clap3.gif

But! Didn't we hear that all those allegation of Mercedes spying on Ferrari were a bunch of baloney???

i know u love me and do it on purpose ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever. If that's what it takes for the truth to come out. It's not a court of law, they can't subpoena someone. They're using the best of what they have available. Frankly blaming Max and Bernie for the fact that the biggest teams in F1 are a bunch of cheats is a bit rich.

Cav, get off your soapbox and read my posting again. I was not blaming Max and Bernie for the cheating teams (although they as individuals do have a lot to answer for, for other reasons).

My gripe was that they are handing out immunity left, right and centre in what appears to be something focused on targetting Flav. If that's not personal, I don't know what is. If you say that they have to offer immunity to get the evidence either they should not bother making this so public if they don't have anything to go on, they should send in a proper team to investigate or should take no action.

I don't see how you can have a balanced judgment/punishment if you have offered two out of the three suspects/protoganists immunity unless you have cast-iron proof that only they are to blame (which they onviously don't). Given that Piquet crashed the car he has a liability, as ultimately he should have said "no". Why should he escape with no punishment?

I'm not defending the teams - I have made my views clear on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cav, get off your soapbox and read my posting again. I was not blaming Max and Bernie for the cheating teams (although they as individuals do have a lot to answer for, for other reasons).

My gripe was that they are handing out immunity left, right and centre in what appears to be something focused on targetting Flav. If that's not personal, I don't know what is. If you say that they have to offer immunity to get the evidence either they should not bother making this so public if they don't have anything to go on, they should send in a proper team to investigate or should take no action.

I don't see how you can have a balanced judgment/punishment if you have offered two out of the three suspects/protoganists immunity unless you have cast-iron proof that only they are to blame (which they onviously don't). Given that Piquet crashed the car he has a liability, as ultimately he should have said "no". Why should he escape with no punishment?

I'm not defending the teams - I have made my views clear on this.

You really disappoint me. I can't believe you are saying that Mosley and Bernie are responsible for the cheating that happened at Renault. Geez! Why don't you read the other people's posts before uttering such an idiotic thought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn it Andres you saw through my post. Yes, Max is to blame, he was there in the Renault pits egging Pat on when he was telling Piquet to crash - I have proof - see the pic at this URL - Max is the one in the white shirt next to the guys wearing overalls. He's wearing a wig and he has his back to the camera, but it is him at that crucial moment....

(ignore the reference to Indianapolis in 2005, this has been clearly done by the guilty parties to hide the truth). http://tinyurl.com/q967xv

As for Bernie, well his ex wife was called Slav, which sounds like Flav (have you noticed you never see them in a room at the same time), so his guilt is obvious. :D

Edited by meanioni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sherlock, you ain't

oh yes I am :yes:

What I am saying is that initially I thought this situation of the safety car was a just a convenient consequence being exploited by the Piquets. However, if that was the case, then when Pat was questioned about it, I would have expected him to say 'nope, no idea what you're talking about'. So obviously, something is not quite right.

The fact that Renault seem to be going down the 'it wasn't our idea, it was Piquet's idea', would seem to suggest that there is some evidence that they can't hide or stop from being revealed, whatever it may be.

I got it now, that's just the kind of thing that show that everything was like Piquet said and Alonso knew it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Max! It's not Nando's, Flabbio's Bernie's, Max's, Monty's, Sato's, Ide's, Schumi's, Ralf's, Nick's, JV's, Mika's, Stig's, Hammond's, Clarkson's, Tiff's, Jesus' or Pat Symonds' fault he crashed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he will be unless they want to waive him in order to keep him in the sport, which it make sense went you think about money, but he is as guilty as everyone else in this case, not only by the rules but also because this was done to make HIM win a race, he was the motive of all this drama, he knew about it, he most have knon about it to make the strategy work (even when many people here want to think differently) he was in an awkward strategy in a difficult to pass circuit and he didn't question the strategy? a light fuel load under this conditions? to fall to the final places and behind a lot of cars with more fuel than him (he was suppose to be in a three stopper) that just doesn't make sense a three stop strategy is even difficult for those in the first places, so I don't have any doubt that he knew it and he was part of this, what I don't know is why they don't have him as a main suspect?

:lol:, Yeah, for once I agree with everything you said...The way Nando gets away with backstabbing and cheating makes him look even worse than how Ferrari were in the past. :P

Anyways, as you said, some people want to think differently,

I am really sure that Nando was a part of this, and even his fans will agree with me, even though they wont admit it...:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really disappoint me. I can't believe you are saying that Mosley and Bernie are responsible for the cheating that happened at Renault. Geez! Why don't you read the other people's posts before uttering such an idiotic thought?

I didn't read his post, but did he say Max & Bernie were responsible for all the cheating at Renault??

Edited by pabloh20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:, Yeah, for once I agree with everything you said...The way Nando gets away with backstabbing and cheating makes him look even worse than how Ferrari were in the past. :P

Anyways, as you said, some people want to think differently,

I am really sure that Nando was a part of this, and even his fans will agree with me, even though they wont admit it...:P

Well, let's think about it logically. If you were a team boss and you had a secret to keep, which driver would you not tell, going by past experiences?? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offering immunity seems a desperate ploy by the FIA to get enough evidence to actually have a case. Without Symonds detailed testimony of what happened in each meeting that went on maybe there isn't enough proof, at least it would seem that way. Maybe the WMSC can take some kind of "negative inference" from a poor testimony on the part of the accused, still though, it's for the FIA/Piquet to prove guilt, not for Renault to prove innocence, and giving a vague testimony isn't enough for such a serious issue. Following from that, I don't see why Symonds doesn't just refuse immunity and give a vague, defensive testimony. If the FIA have some other form of compelling evidence, then I don't understand why they would offer immunity to Symonds at all (they wouldn't need to).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offering immunity seems a desperate ploy by the FIA to get enough evidence to actually have a case. Without Symonds detailed testimony of what happened in each meeting that went on maybe there isn't enough proof, at least it would seem that way. Maybe the WMSC can take some kind of "negative inference" from a poor testimony on the part of the accused, still though, it's for the FIA/Piquet to prove guilt, not for Renault to prove innocence, and giving a vague testimony isn't enough for such a serious issue. Following from that, I don't see why Symonds doesn't just refuse immunity and give a vague, defensive testimony. If the FIA have some other form of compelling evidence, then I don't understand why they would offer immunity to Symonds at all (they wouldn't need to).

You may be right, George. We just can't figure out why Symonds would say 'well yeah we had the conversation about crashing, but it was all his idea, honest'. Surely, if there was only Symonds testimony that could provide proof, he would say 'Aha, up yours spanky bollocks'??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:, Yeah, for once I agree with everything you said...The way Nando gets away with backstabbing and cheating makes him look even worse than how Ferrari were in the past. :P

Anyways, as you said, some people want to think differently,

I am really sure that Nando was a part of this, and even his fans will agree with me, even though they wont admit it...:P

They just want to believe that he is the good girl of the soap opera, but they are just about to find out the truth.

Well, let's think about it logically. If you were a team boss and you had a secret to keep, which driver would you not tell, going by past experiences?? :lol:

You know what? you got a really big point here, so this is what I think it happened, they got Alonso very involved in this on purpose just to get him as guilty as anyone else so if he start talking about he will fall with them and maybe that's way he is so quiet about it, I remember Schumi when he was in Benetton (same people) his team was being blame of cheating and he said "if the cheated I will leave the team" that was even the title of the newspaper section that must still have at home, but eyebrown is very quiet about this and that is not his stile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be right, George. We just can't figure out why Symonds would say 'well yeah we had the conversation about crashing, but it was all his idea, honest'. Surely, if there was only Symonds testimony that could provide proof, he would say 'Aha, up yours spanky bollocks'??

Ok let's pretend it was Piquet's idea, now how they explain Alonso's low fuel load and weird strategy? how they explain NP perfect timing acting by himself? how they explain the Team silence after one of their drivers crashed intentionally to alter the race? they knew he was thinking about it and went he did it, why they didn't talked to the FIA about it, besides that if this was like this NP is one of the must inteligent person in the whole world, he should be in F1 maybe not driving but he is great at calculating strategies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offering immunity seems a desperate ploy by the FIA to get enough evidence to actually have a case. Without Symonds detailed testimony of what happened in each meeting that went on maybe there isn't enough proof, at least it would seem that way. Maybe the WMSC can take some kind of "negative inference" from a poor testimony on the part of the accused, still though, it's for the FIA/Piquet to prove guilt, not for Renault to prove innocence, and giving a vague testimony isn't enough for such a serious issue. Following from that, I don't see why Symonds doesn't just refuse immunity and give a vague, defensive testimony. If the FIA have some other form of compelling evidence, then I don't understand why they would offer immunity to Symonds at all (they wouldn't need to).

you know what? they have more than enough evidence and that is what makes this even more strange, first the have sworn statement by Piquet Jr, they have the Unusual telemetry data, they have the unusual Alonso strategy, they have the unusual radio conversation, they have the unusual calling to pit out of time and the unusual respond to the engineer who thought it was a wierd call, besides that they have a confession in the words of PS "It was Piquet's idea" and the other confession in the word FB "If I tell you to go and rob a Bank and you do it, you were the one who finally made the decision" if I were Max I wouldn't wait unitl monday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only interesting part of all this will be seeing what the FIA do to punish the team, if they are found guilty. They stand in breach of similar, if not the same, article that McLaren was found to have breached and I would expect to see similar punishments dished out. Of course, this presumes a level of fairness by the FIA that simply doesn't exist. Putting all team/national bias aside (which, I acknowledge, is nigh impossible for some people) I can see clearly what will happen here. Flavio will be sent packing but no fine will be given to Renault.

When McLaren were found in breach of the sporting regulations, they were hit with a massive fine. This, I believe, was because Ron Dennis refused to step down. After that, the team were hounded at every turn by the FIA for niggling, and often wrong, interpretations of the rules at some races. I suppose it became clear to Ron that he would need to step down if his team were to ever compete in F1 on a fair footing. He did so and, magically, the FIA has stopped putting pressure on the team.

In that same year as McLaren's troubles, Renault was found to have had McLaren data on their team computers. A far more serious infraction than McLaren, who had the information on a private computer at the home of one employee. Even if we were to escalate McLaren's infraction to the level of Renault's, and assume the Ferrari information had been distributed to the team, it still become clear that Renault was never hit by the FIA with the same punishment as McLaren for, essentially, the same 'crime'. I can only assume that the FIA knew McLaren wouldn't leave F1 over it and it's clear that Renault would.

Now we have Renault again in breach of the regulations and we will again see them handled with 'kid gloves'. Flavio, for giving Max such grief over the past year, will be forced out and Renault will again be let off 'scott free'.

Such is the state of the FIA. It serves as the personal mafia for Mad Max. The galling part of it is, everyone knows this and nobody gives a crap about it. Even on this forum, members are using this as an excuse to smear the drivers and team member they don't like without regard to simple logic. The ability of some people to refuse to acknowledge the simple facts of this whole thing is amazing. I envy you your ability to be selectively close-minded. While ignorance might be bliss, enforced-ignorance must be orgasmic (judging by it's joyful proliferation).

Ah well, such is life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now