Renault in new spy scandal!

[mahesh248]

Ron Dennis wants everything to be in the right way , thats why they appealed agains the cool fuel issue , they abov wanted the title to go to Hamilton , by any possible way , Now Ron and the corps have got another , what do we call it , puzzel to play around with renault , Ron wants to be Mr.Right guy , but some time it turns out to be Wrong Dennis . ( no offence ment to him in any way just a joke ).

[checkered]

Ever wondered who is the leak? A mechanic moved from McLaren to Renault, a spy or Alonso (who already signed to Renault and tried to help his new team)? Any clue to this?

I don't quite

follow your train of thought. The person who alledgedly brought the disks with the documents to Renault from McLaren when switching jobs, Phil Mackereth, is known. Autosport was "leaked" some specifics of the case (Renault's depth of involvement by the number of engineers who examined the material, etc.) recently and they admitted, I think, that the source was McLaren.

There are severe discrepancies in the timelines presented publicly (as there were in the previous case until the puzzle started to come together) by different people. Renault originally claims to have acted immediately upon knowing of the presence of the information. I don't know whether they still stand by that statement, I haven't seen a clear recantment from them anywhere. Some of the information contrary to Renault's original stance was accumulated by a private investigative agency hired by McLaren with the approval of Renault. Some of it is in signed statements gathered from engineers by Renault itself, so it seems likely that they've had to make "amendments" to their position.

It is possible though, even likely perhaps, given some inexplicabilities in how the whole affair has progressed, that McLaren had prior notice of Renault's indiscretion (Mclaren made noises about it quite early on, but I can't remember if it was before Renault's "coming clean revelation" or not). If so, it'd seem only logical that one possibility is indeed Alonso (or his camp) getting the wind of things during the 2006 season and eventually divulging the existence of McLaren IP in the hands of Renault (even if it was outdated) at some point for McLaren, before or after he started his employment with them (perhaps thinking that'd be one more thing to work in his favour). If he did deliver the news for McLaren, surely his negotiating position on renewing his relationship with Renault can't be the easiest possible.

Carrying that thought forward, Alonso could have seen that McLaren, (instead of going public with the information) held on to the incriminating facts as leverage. Or perhaps they decided against acting on it at the time, for the fear of not being able to provide conclusive proof or stepping on some big toes. Or perhaps they chose not to devaluate or endanger Alonso's status as a double World champion now that he drove for McLaren. It would've inevitably affected Alonso's view of IP breaches, or signalled something about his motivations to the team, or both. Thus when the opportunity presented itself, it would've perhaps seemed less risky to handle ill gained IP. Or assume that IP breaches were part of a more complicated game in general than mere enforcement of the sporting code. This is of course overlooking the simple fact that self-evidently, having another team's IP in document form (or indeed a spy with access to privileged information in another team) is strictly forbidden for anyone.

Lacking solid facts, all of the above and below is speculation of course, just one possible construction among many. At this point it really seems to me that while the connections between the two spy cases are largely imaginary and superficial on a regulatory level, there are deeper causes and effects at work here. Those really tie together the human and cultural elements of what has happened, things that elude regulation by nature but provide the rationale to act sensibly and logically. I also felt that the "immunity" McLaren drivers got really prevented anyone to get to the bottom of "Stepneygate" when various people purposefully raised the stakes to levels which in the end were unacceptable to all involved.

What irony then if McLaren and Alonso have, upon dissolving their other contractual obligations, entered into a mutually binding non-diclosure agreement concerning the divulgement of facts and opinions about Fernando's involvement with the team? We'd be faced with another "open" spectacle of a process by the FIA without the slightest chance of actually getting to understand what actually has happened, and quite possibly yet another process and ruling that leaves ample room for doubt. Carlos Gracias' recent comment seemed really cynical, it implies the teams can shield themselves from the worst penalties by employing the biggest stars of F1. Surely that's not a message you want to send to team bosses.

As always, I'm worried about the human aspect as well, perhaps even more so than at the beginning of the Stepney case. It seems pointless to advocate leniency, even, as I did before. People are being dragged through the same things over and over again, even prevented to come clean or make ammense in a sensible or proportional way, supposedly in F1's interest. Just the thing I warned against.

Again, I'm demanding to know who takes responsibility for this and who, indeed, takes responsibility for Formula One in general? There's a point of discontinuity in F1 anyway with the Concorde agreement troubles, so why not establish a "truth and reconciliation commission" and start the new era from a clean slate? The past is the past, this is competition and among other things it should be fun.

I'm tired enough to say that I'd rather not know about this stuff any more. Given the attitude I approach things with, that's impossible. Things are OK for those couple of hours when we get to enjoy the driving talents of F1 on full display. It doesn't make up for the endless "buts" between the races and seasons, though. This needs to be dealt with. Period.

[ben_watkins]

Well Bernie doesn't think it can be ever stopped..
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx ... 7&PO=41357

So what can be done now?

Personally, I think that the result of the Renault hearing next week will be a suprise to most people. My hunch says it won't be anything like the McLaren punishment..

[Shaddock]

As I suspected Bernie is bending over backwards not to hit his best pal Flavio with a big fine.

"They (the FIA) should keep out of it," Bernie Ecclestone told Auto, Motor und Sport. "I did tell Ron Dennis, when the whole mess started, to report to the police that there was a case of theft. Tell them that there is an employee in the house who is receiving or purchasing stolen property. If it was dealt in that way we would not have had the problems we faced this year.

"It should be a matter for the police and the court. They have much better tools to find out the truth."

Just like the FIA kept out of it when Toyota (non McLaren) employees were caught with Ferrari designs.

Ron should turn himself at the nearest cop station, accept a caution and then ask the FIA for his $100 mil. back.

[donskar]

I have spent much of my adult life in the US computer industry, and some of my experience bears on the "spy scandals" current in F1.

In any technical industry, leading participants have a priceless, unmeasurable asset, their knowledge. Any time one of these experts moves from employer to employer, they take their knowledge with them. As long as they take only the knowledge in their heads and other intangibles like human contacts, there really is nothing that can be done. A "non-compete" clause MIGHT keep a person from going to another company in the same industry, but those clauses are usually accompanied by lucrative separation packages, "golden parachutes." (And they often are over-ruled in court anyway.) As an aside, an engineer friend of mine at one of the world's top 3 computer companies was detected sending a job application to a competitor. He was fired for that act.

Taking tangible materials, floppies, drawings, etc is something else. THAT the FIA should be able to outlaw in clear terms that all can understand.

My two pence.

[mcdenife]

donskar wrote:

As long as they take only the knowledge in their heads and other intangibles like human contacts,

and dont forget, their personal notes as well

My one penny addendum

[checkered]

For at least a

couple of decades or so, it's been a habit in the City of London that bankers, traders, economists and such get a full-pay gardening leave of around three to up to twelve months before going to work for a competitor. A nice little arrangement considering their range of income, and considering that at a certain point of a finance pro's career it is expected that everyone is either promoted or switches jobs every two years or so. The practice has been spreading steadily around financial centers around the World.

This contrasts quite sharply with donskar's example from the IT industry, being fired merely for sending a job application. But it usually is the case that the people who warrant others to comply with what they see as the most austere free market principles themselves function in very inefficient ways by comparison. This may consist of routinely being paid for not applying one's skills. Or whizzing to work in some sportscar whereas public transport or minivan carpooling would make all the sense. Or buying loads of expensive artwork to decorate the workplace, whereas I don't believe anyone has established a connection between the price of artwork relative to the satisfaction it produces. Things like that.

So I guess in some areas, the assets of knowledge and loyalty can seem a bit overvalued as well. But hey, if economists, traders and bankers couldn't get the best value out of their doings, I guess I couldn't credit them for being pros in what they do either. Thus I would hardly trust any of them any more than I do now, especially with what I can only perceive as my less leisurely earned money.

[casper]

The way I see it in sports, generally, sanctions are clearly written for every infraction of a sport's rule. In FIA currently, there are no clear written rules for every violation? Why can't the technical committe just make one so that all speculation and general feeling of bias can be done away with? That way, the results of the actual race can be decided right then and there at the end of the race, and not through a court room some months later. We all agree that F1 is a technical sport, which means all observations are compared against measurable physical standards and interpretation are not subjective, (except maybe the 10 mm barge boards of Ferrari more than the standard ).

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, casper, excellent point.

For example, in FIFA Regulations the faults are grouped by the penalty they imply:

"Indirect free-kick: Such and such faults give you an indirect free-kick"
"Direct free-kick: ....", etc.

Perhaps rules at FIA should follow the same recipe, like:

"Ten places grid demotion: The following faults imply a ten places grid demotion...".

Right now, FIA rules seem more like "specifications" written by mechanics, instead of applicable "penalties" written by marshalls.

I imagine that, in a subject so highly "specified" as car racing, maybe marshalls don't find wise to give you in advance an automatic penalty that can be used to your advantage.

I mean, if you know you will lose 10 positions, but by your fault you get a 15 positions advantage, then your choice is clear. Right now, FIA can follow the spirit of laws, a thing that evidently is much harder to do than the "automatic" response of FIFA.

FIFA referees are judged by their ability to be "inflexible" and consistent.

On the other hand, no sane person in the world get a grasp of most FIA rulings in the first ten minutes of learning about it: normally, the subject at hand needs some study, because nobody understand completely a car, as complex as an F1 car, the same way you intuitively understand how a football player behaves.

That, or I haven't read well the rules.

[checkered]

Renault might be

looking into a points penalty indeed. The FIA hasn't published an entry list at the customary date (December 1st), implying that there are things afoot that might affect either racing number allocation, or indeed participant list itself. The teams involved have been quite quiet recently and I guess while the actual WMSC date is set as December 6th, the process building up to that day must constitute the main part of the effort and save for some unexpected last minute revelations, people will know the "ballpark" of things before strolling towards Place de la Concorde. Oh well, the delay could just be a regulatory technicality, too ... but I do wonder whether the potentially "Concordeless" state of the sport might provide one or other party some loopholes to take advantage of?

Something that did not happen - link, grandprix.com

[ben_watkins]

Some clarification from McLaren..

http://www.f1technical.net/news/7761

sounds not as bad as first thought, but still punishable to the extent McLaren were punished, imho.

[FLC]

It's getting pretty hard to keep track with all the "mistakes" McLaren are doing these days.

[checkered]

It's getting pretty hard to keep track with all the "mistakes" McLaren are doing these days.

Two inaccuracies, a misinterpretation,

an error and an issue warranting clarification. I don't quite understand what McLaren's leadership and legal representation is trying to get at with all this, since what has undeniably (by Renault's own admission alone) happened clearly merits a WMDC hearing and in light of the recent precedent, also some sort of action seems overwhelmingly likely. In a position of some strategic strength, they have seemingly managed to invent weaknesses that didn't have to exist in the first place.

The corrections provide some further insight into the infringement of the sporting code and to the McLaren IP improperly transferred to the Renault premises. I found it surprising to begin when it was first suggested that 11 floppy disks could've accommodated 780 drawings, given the file sizes of such drawings generated by the most common programs intended for design purposes. There's little point in saying those drawings could be printed on 762 pages; what's the size of those pages, what's the scale? I could print a drawing onto as many pages as I want, regardless of the information within. There were 18 separate individual drawings (of unspecified file types) among 33 separate files within that material, plus (an indefinite, but apparently not significant enough a number to specify) hard copies (apparently of McLaren's damper design) taken and emails sent from an unspecified location to an unspecified destination, either containing the same, or different information.

The digital information ended up in Mackereth's personal directory via Renault IT staff's assistance. How Renault's directories are arranged and whether "personal directories" also amount to working directories, we don't know. Apparently no floppy disk drives in workstations, which makes sense nowadays. This happened in September, 2006 but it is notable that the engineer joined Renault already in March of the same year, so for some reason he waited five months or so to have the 18 drawing files made technically potentially usable within his new team. The only copies that remained at the time of "discovery" were apparently on Mackereth's personal directory and in backup files. I take it that server records would show had the files been copied or viewed more widely, especially given the trouble it took to have them available on Mackereth's personal directory alone.

Nine people have admitted seeing this information within Renault, but only one other person has seen it on a computer screen and given the other clarifications available, one must assume that he can only have seen it either in the transfer process, i.e. in the IT department, or from a workstation on which Mackereth has been working on, or being able to access Mackereth's personal directory. The other seven persons have seen an unspecified number of paper copies of unspecified nature.

Rather than containing the "entire technical blueprint of the 2006 and 2007 McLaren car", the content turns out to be a set of drawings and a confidential MP4-22 specification document (in writing?) together "constituting a technical definition of the fundamental layout of the 2007 McLaren car and the technical details of its innovative and performance enhancing systems." Now, I'm not entirely sure what that means, but I expect McLaren has made sure that the FIA will find that definition technically acceptable to describe the content accurately. Try describing a wingnut, for example, in drawings and in writing in such a way that put together what you have produced defines a fundamental layout and details specifying its innovative and performance enhancing features. There are simpler ways to go about describing things.

No mention of any Renault staff ever suggesting incorporating any of these ideas, on a conceptual level or by duplicating them directly, in their car. No mention of recreating their competitor's car in a simulator based on the ill gained documents. I can't know when Briatore got to know of the documents - he's not an engineer, so I don't expect him to handle technical material very often. He says that the documants were removed and FIA and McLaren informed as soon as the documents' existence was found out. He must be referring to himself, since nine people (earlier it was suggested that the head of vehicle performance and R&D, deputy technical director, deputy chief designer and chief designer Tim Densham among them) have seen some of the material. The documents were at Renault for almost a year before being formally "discovered".

Who saw what when doesn't of course affect the priciple of "respondeat superior" as there's no indication that Mackereth copied the documents to hurt Renault. it has to stand. Then it just comes down to the gravity of the offence, and that, clearly, has to be considered on its own merits. The first judgement of the Ferrari vs. McLaren WMSC hearing produced this result, and it's as much a precedent as any:

The WMSC is satisfied that Vodafone McLaren Mercedes was in possession of confidential Ferrari information and is therefore in breach of article 151c of the International Sporting Code

However, there is insufficient evidence that this information was used in such a way as to interfere improperly with the FIA Formula One World Championship. We therefore impose no penalty.

But if it is found in the future that the Ferrari information has been used to the detriment of the championship, we reserve the right to invite Vodafone McLaren Mercedes back in front of the WMSC where it will face the possibility of exclusion from not only the 2007 championship but also the 2008 championship.

Whether the same can be said about Renault on these incriminations and evidence, we'll get to know that soon enough. It's interesting to note how actively Briatore followed and commented on the previous "spy" case, especially as seen in the light of subsequent events. Before attending the first WMSC hearing, he had this to say:

This story involves everybody sooner or later. I want to know exactly what is going on because I think it is part of our job. If you see the newspapers in the last two months, we are not talking about who is the guy winning the race or losing the race. The spy story, if you want, is predominant in everything. I believe this story is damaging everybody a little bit, including me...Stuff like this is not good for the sponsors or anybody.

And he had this to say after the first McLaren verdict of "guilty but unpunishable":

I said if you call the World Council, you have evidence that there is something wrong. If you don't have evidence, why would you call the World Council? If you call the World Council it is because you have the proof that McLaren need punishing. If you call the World Council and you don't have evidence, I don't know why you'd call them.

When we started developing the car for 2007 we maybe underestimated the big technical impact there would have been with the coming of Bridgestone as sole tyre supplier in place of Michelin. For me it was unquestionable that Ferrari, after many years with Bridgestone, would have had an advantage. But had I only known Ferrari's weight distribution, or how big their tank is, if I had a bit of those documents, then we surely wouldn't be in this situation today. We would certainly have gained in performance.

When everything is played within one tenth of a second, any information on your rivals, even if partial, is important. If he (Ron Dennis) knew there were those papers around, he should have informed Jean Todt about it immediately. And the federation. Dennis says he's immaculate, but it's hard to believe him. No, I don't believe in his good faith. In a team everyone knows everything. Especially if the dossier - let's call it that - in question is at that level.

All the team managers should say that in F1 there's no more room for them (Coughlan and Stepney). And it's an extremely serious thing that Coughlan hasn't yet been fired by McLaren. We must clean up by punishing certain people. So that what happened won't happen again. So that a mechanic, before passing on certain information to a rival, will think about it 27 times.

It'll be interesting to see how all this reflects on the issue at hand. Equally interesting - whether Renault has learned anything from observing the Mclaren/Ferrari affair so closely and whether they'll adopt a different defensive approach. Presumably WMSC's decision has to be such that Mclaren will have no grounds whatsoever to complain about unfair treatment to a national or EU court, calling the FIA's evenhandedness and authority in question. Whether the severity of a possible punishment can be viewed as the ultimate measure of equitability, I doubt that very much. As said, the measure of Renault's breach must be considered on its own merits. Anything less, and Renault can also call the process and the result into question.

[FLC]

Two inaccuracies, a misinterpretation, an error and an issue warranting clarification. I don't quite understand what McLaren's leadership and legal representation is trying to get at with all this, since what has undeniably (by Renault's own admission alone) happened clearly merits a WMDC hearing and in light of the recent precedent, also some sort of action seems overwhelmingly likely. In a position of some strategic strength, they have seemingly managed to invent weaknesses that didn't have to exist in the first place.

Thank you for this long, impressive post, checkered. That's exactly what I mean. Something is terribly wrong in that team and it doesn't seem like it's getting any better after the events of last season. So many lies, mistakes, misinterpretations, errors and what not. They practically made a joke of themselves with the last appeal, letting their lawyers fight for something the team said out loud they don't want, lawyers who seem to not be aware of the law in what is pretty much a basic proceeding. How can a team of this scale can be so serious and demanding on the matter of clarifying fuel regulations and then just let it go with no actual answers? Maybe the lawyers were just being truthful...

[ben_watkins]

Maybe the lawyers were just being truthful...

Lawyers and truthful in the same sentence don't go

They are never truthful in my opinion - They are there to make themselves money presenting a version of events that may never be close to the truth but may be beliveable. The most believable story told = the winner of the case.

And yes, nice post chequered