FIA to launch probe on '08 Singapore GP

BeamingSauber07 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alonso told the Stewards who quizzed him that
> strategy decisions are usually left to the
> tacticians rather than himself


well that's quite a BS because every other driver on the grid say they decide the strategy together with a tacticians...and Alonso was the only one with low fuel load tactic at Singapore, others came in just because of the safety car.

Maybe,

I'm just quoting what was on the official transcript, of course it might be BS but i think its equal BS to say Alonso's implicated based on fuel loads.

True, I hope he is not quilty on this in anyway, would be best for the F1.

What is going on? it doesnt quite add up. the transcript of the radio messages during the incident indicate there was nothing in it, and next think symonds and briatore are given the sack?

Symonds was offered immunity, why didnt he take it? there must be something else to this with Renault trying to protect themselves. I have a feeliong Briatore and Symonds will still say they are innocent.

Maybe Renault foresaw a guilty verdict, but on paper its looks like they could quite easily have defended this issue (even if they are guilty in reality)

vesuvius Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well that's quite a BS because every other driver
> on the grid say they decide the strategy together
> with a tacticians...

And Alonso will too, but he doesn't work them out, just discuss them with the team. It's not like he's immune to low fuel runs - he's the guy who does them more than anyone.

It won't take a boffin to sell a driver a strategy. I've already said why a low fuel first stint might be considered, and that doesn't even go into the possibility of overtaking (Alonso had made 4 places before he stopped, which is probably where he would have finished if he'd just gone with the same strategy as the rest). Going aggressive gave him a chance to do something with the speed he had.

kubica2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is going on? it doesnt quite add up. the
> transcript of the radio messages during the
> incident indicate there was nothing in it, and
> next think symonds and briatore are given the
> sack?
>
> Symonds was offered immunity, why didnt he take
> it? there must be something else to this with
> Renault trying to protect themselves. I have a
> feeliong Briatore and Symonds will still say they
> are innocent.
>
> Maybe Renault foresaw a guilty verdict, but on
> paper its looks like they could quite easily have
> defended this issue (even if they are guilty in
> reality)

i'd guess thats what happened

at some point in the process of putting together their defence, the renault board have discovered that they were infact guilty and that there was very little chance of them successfully being able deny it and get away with it at the hearing.

hence they've done the only thing left open to them. 'fess up and throw the people they believe to be responsible to the wolves.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2009 06:09PM by marwood82.

marwood82 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hence they've done the only thing left open to
> them. 'fess up and throw the people they believe
> to be responsible to the wolves.

The only thing is that they don't want the ongoing negative publicity and have tried to nip it in the bud ASAP, regardless of guilt. Maybe they thought by doing this, the case might be dropped and that would be the end of it.

Very, very unlikely (and I certainly wouldn't subscribe to it), but I suppose to an extent it's possible.

Well the penalty could be massively reduced (for the team, not the individuals), if they can prove that only those 3 knew about it. If the focus is just on some rogue individuals, and not on the team, Renault might get out of it a bit better. For that reason, I wonder whether Renault itself was involved in the decision for Flavio and Pat to quit.

We do have a precedent for this as some reports suggested Dennis leaving McLaren lessened their penalty earlier in the year.

---

X (@ed24f1)

Maybe they will just take away their 2009 Constructor points. That way nobody is going to lose their job at the factory.

hahah Alonso banned for a year... joins Ferrari as a 'test driver' but is not an official driver so does this mean he can drive insane amounts of testing on a following seasons car? i wonder...


Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it

danm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hahah Alonso banned for a year... joins Ferrari as
> a 'test driver' but is not an official driver so
> does this mean he can drive insane amounts of
> testing on a following seasons car? i wonder...

No, just like Schumacher couldn't test a Ferrari 2007 car (it had to be one of the F1 Clienti cars).

Alonso isn't going to get a ban.

I said I would be massively surprised if Renault were found guilty. I am bracing myself for a shock.

---

K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.

Well the penalty could be massively reduced (for the team, not the individuals), if they can prove that only those 3 knew about it.

Innocent until proven guilty. Currently other than Piquet Sr contradiction Piquet Jrs official statement, there is nothing to say Alonso did know.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

Piquet Jr himself said that Alonso wasn't involved. If Alonso was in fact involved i can't see the reason why Jr didn't expose him as well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2009 01:06AM by AcE_cOdEr.

Today I went to Renault site.

I liked it.




They know their facts.

I watched the highlight link on the BBC last.

Alonso simply started on a light fuel load and the softest tyres for the 1st stint, they wanted to get these out the way and make up places after the problem in quali. I really do not think Alonso knew.

I think they will get a fine and that will be it.

Max has got what he wants anyway, Flav is out of F1 just like Ron. Just one guy left for Max to get rid of and job done for him.

I can not wait to see what hard facts they have that Flav and Pat planned this. Piquet snr was never the most honest person in F1, and I would not trust him now.

[www.telegraph.co.uk]

l0l w00t.

I dont see how Massa can sue tbh, he still had a chance to win the race but they messed up in the pits. Yes he may not have had the problem if they did not rush, but we dont know that his team messed up and blew any chance of point. Lewis finished 3rd and Massa could have without the problem.

Massa can sue all he wants. Why shouldn't he be able to? The real question is, if he can win.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

On the strategy issue, after Piquets podium I read an interview with Pat Symons in which he said that if they qualify badly they dont put their drivers on a standard strategy cos there would be no point in making up a couple of places.

Hence put the drivers on a different strategy, safety car comes out and gives Piquet a podium in germany and Alonso a win in singapore.

---