Hamilton V Schumacher [Archive]

MrJan

3rd August 2008, 19:14

In context it reads as if Lewis has the utmost respect for Schumacher but doesn't feel the need to be intimdated, believing that he's capable of working just as hard.

Clearly he's not trying to compare his results or sucess, there's not a single F1 driver who could claim to be his statistical equal.

:up: I think that most driver's on the grid would like to think that they have the talent to equal Schumacher and all the other great names. Hamilton would be fully away that he is nowhere near that level yet (he's still only half way through his second season).

This thread is just another example of someone who doesn't like Hamilton and has decided to distort another of his quotes. We all get it by now, a lot of people think he's arrogant.

As for Massa wackiong him? Not so sure. There was only 5 seconds between the 2 when Lewis had a puncture and we have no idea if he was on a preferable strategy. Think back to Silverstone on the other hand and you really can see a true display of someone being 'wacked' :D

gloomyDAY

3rd August 2008, 19:25

Not this crap again...

ioan

3rd August 2008, 19:31

Not this crap again...

Agreed, there is no way to compare the two of them.
It's like comparing Jenson Button with Sir Stirling Moss!

markabilly

3rd August 2008, 19:52

As far as I can make out he's referring to this quote:

“Michael is someone I have been watching for years, but I can do just as good a job as him and my task is to contribute as much as he does."Source: http://www.express.co.uk/motorsport/view/55202/Lewis-I-m-as-good-as-Schu

In context it reads as if Lewis has the utmost respect for Schumacher but doesn't feel the need to be intimdated, believing that he's capable of working just as hard.

Clearly he's not trying to compare his results or sucess, there's not a single F1 driver who could claim to be his statistical equal.

Actually it does not seem to be up to the usual "I am (Lewis Hamilton is) the best (fill in blank)"

In any event, when it comes to such self-boasting, no question LH is far better than MS ever was...

Jag_Warrior

3rd August 2008, 20:58

Not this crap again...

“Michael is someone I have been watching for years, but I can do just as good a job as him and my task is to contribute as much as he does."

Of course this crap again. If that is the quote the original poster is referring to, any (young) driver who wouldn't say the same thing should be fired tomorrow morning. Arrogant or not (and he is a touch arrogant), as long as you walk the walk as you talk the talk, you can do as you please, as far as I'm concerened.

The driver I hack on more than any other is Danica Patrick. The issue I have with that one is, when she's not doing much as a driver, she becomes a "successful female driver". If and when she ever becomes a "successful driver", I'll admit that her PR team should present her however they choose. Or... someone can show me that race cars can tell the difference between male and female drivers, and adapt their performance accordingly. Otherwise, I'll continue to draw the line between people who talk the talk as they walk the walk, and those who just talk.

After his Villeneuve "oh my, was there a car there?" episode, I jumped off the Schumacher bandwagon and never looked back. But I'm not retarded. There's no denying that he was a great racer. Arrogant or not, no one knows where Hamilton will place once it's all said and done. But the people who don't like him tend to pick the absolute weakest $#!^ to highlight.

speeddurango

4th August 2008, 00:31

Rollo

4th August 2008, 01:01

Not to mention we all know SCHUMACHER and he ain't SCHUMACHER .
But his job like every other driver out there is to win GPs and ultimately the World Championship; that's what he is paid to do.

I have believed I have got the opportunity to win the world championship since day one.

Can you honestly tell me the name of one driver who doesn't have tickets on themself?

ShiftingGears

4th August 2008, 02:57

I think people need to stop going out of their way to try and get offended.

Jag_Warrior

4th August 2008, 03:05

I'm a little off topic here but I always find this amusing when people accused DP for not being a successful driver while igoring the fact she's a female driver. Motorsport is kind of a sport that male and female competes together, you look at other sports, heck, even in Golf there are men and women's cup seperately. Let alone motorsport, unless motorsport is not a physical demanding sport, and drivers should never be called athlete in any slightest sense. Really, disregarding the difference of Man's and Women's physical ability is just obsessive compulsive. If DP can do better, that would be great, but she deserves what she's got now and also a great PR for IRL, period.

If auto racing was about physical strength, most WDC's would look like NFL linemen. Racing drivers, especially formula car drivers, tend to need more endurance than pure physical strength. And every study I have read has found that while men tend to have greater physical strength per kg of bodyweight than a comparably sized woman, women have greater endurance per kg of bodyweight. So at age 26, I'm not sure what other excuses people will make for Danica's lack of success as a driver... other than to bring up her gender to make her seem special or unique. She and her fans haven't been chirping about that F1 test lately. Wonder why? :p :

Back on topic, yep, I want to see how Hamilton handles it when he's not in one of the best cars of the field.

Probably about as successful as every other driver who has gotten stuck in a dog car: few if any wins and very few podiums over whatever period of time the driver is stuck with that team. This is F1. The car (and team) is key to the driver's success.

truefan72

4th August 2008, 04:43

yawn.. another Hamilton bashing thread, with even less facts and full on perceived indiscretions.

PolePosition_1

4th August 2008, 10:00

Its crazy, I actually dislike Hamilton, and many would describe me as 'anti-lewis'.

But everytime I go on a forum, I find myself defending him, because people are having a go at him for no particular reason. Its just ridiculous!

Garry Walker

4th August 2008, 11:00

Comparing Hamilton and Schumacher is like comparing a 10 year old girls boxing ability with Lennox Lewis`

PolePosition_1

4th August 2008, 11:07

Comparing Hamilton and Schumacher is like comparing a 10 year old girls boxing ability with Lennox Lewis`

Well, its not really. He been racing in top car, and won 30% of his races. Been on pole for nearly 35% of his races.

If you look at Schumacher record when he was in top car (so we're excluding his not so competitive days in 1996, 2005 etc). And Schumacher has similar stats, only difference is Hamilton racing in error where 4 drivers can win at each GP, whereas many of Schumachers years he didn't have any competitors, only his team-mate.....and wel lets not go there :) .

So comparing Hamilton and Schumacher isn't that silly, in terms of success anyway.

Knock-on

4th August 2008, 11:23

OK, anyone going to finally comment on HAMILTON'S dumb comment? It seems that he makes a lot of these ....well I don't really want to say it but I will say it anyway... MORONIC, self important comments a lot.

I don't like him and while his talent is undeniable his way too impressed with himself blather makes MASSA wacking him today ...wonderful.

Not to mention we all know SCHUMACHER and he ain't SCHUMACHER .

:rolleyes:

:z

:wave:

555-04Q2

4th August 2008, 12:00

Comparing LH with MS may be a bit premature, but...

Hamilton is the next Schumi, Senna, Clark, Fangio.....whatever you want to call him. In 15 years time we will be looking at his record and be saying "holy sh!t, this guy has an unbelievable record!". He will become a great in time.

52Paddy

4th August 2008, 13:02

I always think how funny it would be if Lewis Hamilton became a 'nearly man.' It happened to so many great drivers over the years.

Dr. Krogshöj

4th August 2008, 13:09

kollekole

4th August 2008, 22:02

I am with you guys.............

nigelred5

5th August 2008, 02:05

You have to be confident to the point of arrogance, But let's see a championship first, then a second, then bring a team from the dregs to 5 more championships,which very well could have been 7 more. Then we'll talk about him being as good. Schumacher carried more than a few cars his teammates weren't able to do as well. Is Hamilton as capable of the same? Does he have that extra second or two when the car doesn't? I believe Schummi definitely did, the verdict is still out for me on Hamilton.

Let's see how well McLaren keeps up the development to support him. Wurz was a tremendous development driver for McLaren, and De la Rosa appears to be very good as well, but it also takes a good race driver to keep his head on straight. LH has shown quite a few brainfarts and a couple unfortunate incidents in races, but also a couple masterful drives, especially in the wet.

Put LH in the Renault or better, the BMW and let's see where he is on the grid. Would he make a 4th place car into a consistent front row starter and podium finisher? Does he win the races he should win make the difference to win the races on track maybe he shouldn't have AND have the team and teammate to make sure he wins even when maybe he wasn't on the A game? It's often more than just driving ability that makes a driver a champion? Pure arrogance won't get you that cooperation. That's the kind difference a Senna or Prost or a Schumacher made.

Knock-on

5th August 2008, 10:20

As I've said before, please don't sink to comparing Lewis with Schumacher.

Criticise him all you want but leave the insults out :D

Whyzars

5th August 2008, 13:16

Hamilton has commenced his F1 career in a time where every twitch from a driver is analysed and dissected. He is probably far better trained and prepared than Schumacher was at the same age because of this analysis.

He may very well be as talented as Schumacher but whether he will achieve the same results will depend on McLaren and whether they remain at the leading edge. Schumacher won the WDC with two different teams which only a select few drivers have ever done.

I am assuming that the relationship is pretty tight between McLaren and Lewis. Would Hamilton ever get into another seat if he thought it necessary to win a WDC?

Garry Walker

5th August 2008, 13:45

Well, its not really. He been racing in top car, and won 30% of his races. Been on pole for nearly 35% of his races.

If you look at Schumacher record when he was in top car (so we're excluding his not so competitive days in 1996, 2005 etc). And Schumacher has similar stats, only difference is Hamilton racing in error where 4 drivers can win at each GP, whereas many of Schumachers years he didn't have any competitors, only his team-mate.....and wel lets not go there :) .

So comparing Hamilton and Schumacher isn't that silly, in terms of success anyway.

When Schumacher had a car as good as Hamilton is having now, he dominated seasons and took titles. Also, Schumacher never struggled against any teammate in neither qualifying or race, but Hamilton is finding it very difficult to outdo someone like kovalainen, who is nothing special at all, in qualifying.

ioan

5th August 2008, 14:18

Hamilton has commenced his F1 career in a time where every twitch from a driver is analysed and dissected. He is probably far better trained and prepared than Schumacher was at the same age because of this analysis.

I highly doubt it.

He may very well be as talented as Schumacher but whether he will achieve the same results will depend on McLaren and whether they remain at the leading edge.

You see there is the difference, MS won the title in inferior machine too, LH is expected to do it only if McLaren are the best.

I am assuming that the relationship is pretty tight between McLaren and Lewis. Would Hamilton ever get into another seat if he thought it necessary to win a WDC?

He might not, but it seems to me that it's his father who decides what he does.

Brown, Jon Brow

5th August 2008, 17:50

When Schumacher had a car as good as Hamilton is having now, he dominated seasons and took titles. Also, Schumacher never struggled against any teammate in neither qualifying or race, but Hamilton is finding it very difficult to outdo someone like kovalainen, who is nothing special at all, in qualifying.

Do you have a short memory or have you forgotten that Ferrari had a considerable advantage at the start of the season?

Hamilton is struggling against Kovalainen? :confused:

Drivers Standing
1. Hamilton - 62pts
6. Kovalainen - 38pts

Let me remind you that Hamilton has had more poles this season than any other driver. :rolleyes:

Corny

5th August 2008, 18:03

I think the moment to say if Lewis is the better driver, is when he hasn't got one of the betters cars under him..

Michael was a master in making the maximum out of every car

jso1985

5th August 2008, 21:28

You see there is the difference, MS won the title in inferior machine too, LH is expected to do it only if McLaren are the best.

If he wins this year, then he won it a superior machine, true.

But how can you be sure he will never win a title on a inferior machine?

52Paddy

5th August 2008, 21:37

LH is expected to do it only if McLaren are the best.

Well, we don't know that. We don't know how he would drive in inferior machinery. Though, I can't see him moving from McLaren for a good while, if ever. Ron Dennis seems to have Hamilton tied down, or maybe its the other way around. Whatever about it, the connection there seems too solid to be broken. But thats just speculation really.

Viktory

5th August 2008, 22:47

As I've said before, please don't sink to comparing Lewis with Schumacher.

Criticise him all you want but leave the insults out :D

I agree. Schumacher definitely doesn't deserve those insults, since he is the best F1 driver ever. (IMO :p )

Whyzars

6th August 2008, 03:03

I highly doubt it.

All I was saying is that I believe Schumacher would've been a better driver, earlier, if today's technology was available the first time he drove an F1 car. Hamilton must've benefited from the driver feedback information and simulators of today and was a better prepared driver the first time he climbed into an F1 car.

I believe that Hamilton's achievement last year was his first shot at greatness. His next shot will not come until he is within one race win of his fourth WDC.

You see there is the difference, MS won the title in inferior machine too, LH is expected to do it only if McLaren are the best.

We can only ever assess results based on the driver/car combination. If Schumacher won then the package was superior on the day even though the car may not have been. Even #2 driver performance is often not an accurate measure of the quality of a car.

...it's his father who decides what he does.

That'll change once Lewis discovers girls. :)

Actually Lewis' father has managed his career wonderfully thus far but if ever McLaren is in the doldrum's then loyalty may only be as deep as McLaren's pockets.

I'm a dyed in the wool Schumacher fan and believe he is the best driver that I will ever see and I don't expect his records to ever be surpassed. Having said that, before Schumacher there was Fangio and his records were seemingly immortal.

We have no idea what the future holds. F1 could get to a 48 race season and Michaels's records could be eclipsed in a couple of years by a hybrid that squeak's away from the start/finish line. :crazy:

Marshall

6th August 2008, 04:50

I hate comparisons people make between Lewis and Senna, or Lewis and Schumacher. They never competed against one another, in fact I'd say that Schumi's retirement was the end of one era and the beginning of another.

Who knows how fast they actually are compared to one another. Who even knows how good Massa and Kimi are compared to Lewis, or even Jenson Button. The only way to make a certain comparison is to have each driver in exactly the same car and exactly the same conditions.

The thing that I respect and look up to the most in Senna and Schumacher, you see, was not their raw speed though. It was their commitment and passion for the sport and their teams. By the time Ferrari and Michael reached their time of absolute domination, the team was custom built around him. His efforts ran deeper than just steering the car around the track. So did Senna's.

Only time will tell if Lewis is like this, but the McLaren guys seem to be pretty behind him at the moment.

As for his comment, I agree that its just his self-talk. It may come across as arrogant, but as has been said above, any driver would be saying that.

Leave the judging until there is some history. The guy hasn't even got a championship yet.

(And I hope he doesn't cause I'm a diehard Ferrari fan)

harsha

6th August 2008, 05:47

ioan

6th August 2008, 07:14

All I was saying is that I believe Schumacher would've been a better driver, earlier, if today's technology was available the first time he drove an F1 car. Hamilton must've benefited from the driver feedback information and simulators of today and was a better prepared driver the first time he climbed into an F1 car.

First time I thought you meant it the other way around, that Hamilton is much better than MS taking into account the huge development since 1990.

I believe that Hamilton's achievement last year was his first shot at greatness. His next shot will not come until he is within one race win of his fourth WDC.

3 titles would already make him great, but he still has to get them.

We can only ever assess results based on the driver/car combination. If Schumacher won then the package was superior on the day even though the car may not have been.

But this way you will never asses the drivers abilities, it means that you are not trying to find out who is the best driver, which is what the question is about.

Even #2 driver performance is often not an accurate measure of the quality of a car.

Why is that?
If one of the drivers is consistently weaker in the same car than it surely means that the other one is better. And if he is weaker than both drivers of the teams they are in direct competition, it surely is meaningful.

That'll change once Lewis discovers girls. :)

:rotflmao:
I think you're right, she will surely be the one taking the decisions afterward!

I'm a dyed in the wool Schumacher fan and believe he is the best driver that I will ever see and I don't expect his records to ever be surpassed. Having said that, before Schumacher there was Fangio and his records were seemingly immortal.

It took so many years for that to happen, I think we might have no F1 in another 5 centuries!

We have no idea what the future holds. F1 could get to a 48 race season and Michaels's records could be eclipsed in a couple of years by a hybrid that squeak's away from the start/finish line. :crazy:

That's true.

jens

6th August 2008, 11:49

We have had threads of Lewis vs Ayrton and Ayrton vs Michael, so finally the third part of the triangle has been found too. :D

I've said it in the past that Lewis in many ways reminds me Michael.
Heck, even the discussions and criticism seems soooo similar to what I saw with Michael. Well, let's see...
- He wins only thanks to the best car
- He can't handle the pressure
- He wins only because team-mate is not allowed to fight with him
- He makes idiotic moves
- He's arrogant
- He's just lucky ( :p :)
- etc

Don't you think it has all been heard already in the not-so-long-ago past?

Hamilton as the new Schumacher? Well, I don't remember, how did the 1994 discussions look like, but I'm pretty sure a lot of Senna fans were furious to hear that some guys were trying to compare a green and young MS to the legendary Brazilian! The history is repeating itself again.

I have to admit that I'm genuinely surprised that there is very little in common between Schumacher and Hamilton fans. I mean those fan groups, who in the past defended MS, are now fighting against LH and the reverse. I really can't understand. This amazes me. LH and MS are in several ways so similar... but they have so little in common among fans. They have not "found" each other.

Both drivers have had my support and I genuinely enjoy comparing them. This doesn't mean I'm trying to belittle either of them - far from that!

52Paddy

7th August 2008, 08:36

We have had threads of Lewis vs Ayrton and Ayrton vs Michael, so finally the third part of the triangle has been found too. :D

I've said it in the past that Lewis in many ways reminds me Michael.
Heck, even the discussions and criticism seems soooo similar to what I saw with Michael. Well, let's see...
- He wins only thanks to the best car
- He can't handle the pressure
- He wins only because team-mate is not allowed to fight with him
- He makes idiotic moves
- He's arrogant
- He's just lucky ( :p :)
- etc

Your entitled to your own opinion but I think most of the above here is B.S. Michael won the 1994 and 1995 title in a Benetton. Not the best car. Not the worst either, but could not be considered the best out there.
In his latter years, we've seen Michael make mistakes under pressure but I can't remember too many examples of that to be honest.
True enough, most of team-mates were not of race winning standard. It was a bit unfortunate that when Eddie Irvine had a shot of the title in 1999, Michael had broken his legs. Thats one flaw I'll grant you correct.
Idiotic moves? Give me a few examples of what you consider 'idiotic moves.' His consistency and genuine passes surely outweighs this.
Arrogant? I don't agree. I've never heard him go on boastfully about himself. In interviews he is generally calm, to my mind. I can't remember one episode of Michael being seriously arrogant (since about 2001 anyway.)
For fear you not joking about the 'lucky' part, ah, no, I won't actually go there...

I have to admit that I'm genuinely surprised that there is very little in common between Schumacher and Hamilton fans.

Well the fact that they're completely different types of drivers might have something to do with it! :p :

ioan

7th August 2008, 09:14

Heck, even the discussions and criticism seems soooo similar to what I saw with Michael. Well, let's see...
- He wins only thanks to the best car
- He can't handle the pressure
- He wins only because team-mate is not allowed to fight with him
- He makes idiotic moves
- He's arrogant
- He's just lucky ( :p :)
- etc

What load of BS! :mad:

ShiftingGears

7th August 2008, 09:26

First time I thought you meant it the other way around, that Hamilton is much better than MS taking into account the huge development since 1990.

I think that when it comes down to it, drivers of different eras can only be compared in terms of talent and composure, and doing what was necessary to win.

So I don't think that Fangio is somehow a lesser world champion than Schumacher, or Schumacher somehow lesser than Hamilton because he didn't have as much physical/mental training innovations availiable.

ShiftingGears

7th August 2008, 09:29

What load of BS! :mad:

I think you misread what jens said.

Knock-on

7th August 2008, 09:35

I've said it in the past that Lewis in many ways reminds me Michael.
Heck, even the discussions and criticism seems soooo similar to what I saw with Michael. Well, let's see...
- He wins only thanks to the best car
- He can't handle the pressure
- He wins only because team-mate is not allowed to fight with him
- He makes idiotic moves
- He's arrogant
- He's just lucky ( :p :)
- etc

Don't you think it has all been heard already in the not-so-long-ago past?

I've thought the same :up:

With Michael, there were concerns that he had illegal electronic assistance which is why he won in the Benetton (for example) as it was the best car out there. However, this was never proven.

With Lewis, it's been proven that the Ferrari is overwhelmingly the fastest race car this year but Lewis is ahead of the Championship. Yet people claim that the McLaren is a superior car and that's the only reason Lewis is ahead.

I also know there were allegations of Michael suffering brain fade when under pressure and Lewis has had those same allegations.

I suppose that the team mate thing is a little bit different. We know Rubins was #2 where we have seen some fantastic battles between the 2 McLarens.

All the rest, not even ioan can argue that both drivers have not had those allegations aimed at both drivers. Or perhaps he will :laugh:

Sorry I didn't reply that you were talking Bull like some members but thought your post was worthy or a reasoned response.

ioan

7th August 2008, 09:59

I think you misread what jens said.

Might be, as I was not sure he was serious about what he typed. However if he meant that seriously then it's complete BS.

Knock-on

7th August 2008, 10:13

Might be, as I was not sure he was serious about what he typed. However if he meant that seriously then it's complete BS.

Perhaps you can quantify what exactly you think is BS or admit your talking BS (yet) again?

ShiftingGears

7th August 2008, 10:14

Might be, as I was not sure he was serious about what he typed. However if he meant that seriously then it's complete BS.

I think you did. He was talking about the discussions and critisisms of Michael Schumacher and Lewis Hamilton, both notably observable in these forums.

Right or wrong, you can't deny that the points that jens brought up weren't argued to death on these forums during the Schumacher years.

ioan

7th August 2008, 11:21

Maybe I should have included his previous sentence too:

I've said it in the past that Lewis in many ways reminds me Michael.

This pointed out, for me, that he was believing in what he posted.
Maybe I was wrong. It happens to everyone.

And I still maintain that it's BS no matter how much it was discussed or not at the time MS was around.

Knock-on

7th August 2008, 11:56

And I still maintain that it's BS no matter how much it was discussed or not at the time MS was around.

What? What is BS. I am genuinly confused about what he has said that you don't agree with.

Can you just explain in little words for us poor unfortunates that don't pocess ESP.

ioan

7th August 2008, 13:35

What? What is BS. I am genuinly confused about what he has said that you don't agree with.

Can you just explain in little words for us poor unfortunates that don't pocess ESP.

You seem to have lot of time on your hands, for asking idiotic questions. I don't have that luxury, so I'll let you play your little game alone! :D

Knock-on

7th August 2008, 13:40

You seem to have lot of time on your hands, for asking idiotic questions. I don't have that luxury, so I'll let you play your little game alone! :D

So, duck it again.

You seem to make a habit of writing some ludicrous claim which you systematically refuse to substantiate.

I am merely asking what you mean when you claim someones post is BS. Just explain yourself or don't write idiotic posts. It's easy.

PolePosition_1

7th August 2008, 13:46

With Michael, there were concerns that he had illegal electronic assistance which is why he won in the Benetton (for example) as it was the best car out there. However, this was never proven.

It was proven that the Bennetton had traction control on the car. But it was never proven that they actually used it.....

Knock-on

7th August 2008, 14:03

It was proven that the Bennetton had traction control on the car. But it was never proven that they actually used it.....

:laugh:

Yep. That was where they denied thay had it and then it was found.

When it was found they claimed it couldn't be operated independently so couldn't be used in races and then it was proved that by pushing a set sequence of buttons, it could be switched on and off at will.

Then they were let off scot free because it couldn't be proved they actually used it even though it popped, farted and glowed brakes on and off quicker than a tarts knickers :laugh:

jens

7th August 2008, 14:58

Your entitled to your own opinion but I think most of the above here is B.S. Michael won the 1994 and 1995 title in a Benetton. Not the best car. Not the worst either, but could not be considered the best out there.
In his latter years, we've seen Michael make mistakes under pressure but I can't remember too many examples of that to be honest.
True enough, most of team-mates were not of race winning standard. It was a bit unfortunate that when Eddie Irvine had a shot of the title in 1999, Michael had broken his legs. Thats one flaw I'll grant you correct.
Idiotic moves? Give me a few examples of what you consider 'idiotic moves.' His consistency and genuine passes surely outweighs this.
Arrogant? I don't agree. I've never heard him go on boastfully about himself. In interviews he is generally calm, to my mind. I can't remember one episode of Michael being seriously arrogant (since about 2001 anyway.)
For fear you not joking about the 'lucky' part, ah, no, I won't actually go there...

What's wrong with you? Who said those points are my opinions? I said those points are and have been debated among masses.

In the past I defended MS the same way against detractors. It was tiring and hopeless. When I have to defend LH now, I have exactly the same feeling. Same claims and arguments are used again. I'm reallly not fond of going through this again during yet another driver's career.
Oh and I forgot one "point":
- FIA/Bernie/Politics/whatever favour him to win. :D

The so-called ultimate benchmarks tend to get the heaviest criticism, because the amount of fans of all the other drivers together is bigger and among them there are always those, who are seriously annoyed that their favourite is shadowed by another driver.

And ioan. I guess in 1994 or earlier several Senna fans would have reacted with the phrase of "BS" as well if you tried to compare your hero to him. ;)
Talking about 1994. I guess Schumacher pass on the warm-up lap at Silverstone got as heavy bashing back then as Hamilton's "manoeuvre" in Canada'08?

Surely at the moment Hamilton is not as complete, flawless and polished as Michael was at his prime, but Lewis is still a youngster with rough edges with most probably his better days still ahead. But some patterns are for me visible. The main area, where I find hard to find a proper comparison between LH and MS yet, is how good Lewis technically is and how well does he act in the role of the so-called team leader. But this is the area, which takes most time in reaching the ultimate level and only time will tell, how will LH write himself into the history books.

Besides all... at the moment Hamilton seems the only conceivable driver, who may threaten MS's records or at least some of them. 8/92 and 10/68 at the age of 23 from Lewis' side. The task may seem hard, but it's not impossible. MS reached those number (8/10) by the age of 25-26.

---

Oh, I see. Again Benetton's traction control is discussed in this topic. Another similarity. MS/LH teams' were cheating. :D

Knock-on

7th August 2008, 15:14

What's wrong with you? Who said those points are my opinions? I said those points are and have been debated among masses.

In the past I defended MS the same way against detractors. It was tiring and hopeless. When I have to defend LH now, I have exactly the same feeling. Same claims and arguments are used again. I'm reallly not fond of going through this again during yet another driver's career.
Oh and I forgot one "point":
- FIA/Bernie/Politics/whatever favour him to win. :D

The so-called ultimate benchmarks tend to get the heaviest criticism, because the amount of fans of all the other drivers together is bigger and among them there are always those, who are seriously annoyed that their favourite is shadowed by another driver.

And ioan. I guess in 1994 or earlier several Senna fans would have reacted with the phrase of "BS" as well if you tried to compare your hero to him. ;)
Talking about 1994. I guess Schumacher pass on the warm-up lap at Silverstone got as heavy bashing back then as Hamilton's "manoeuvre" in Canada'08?

Surely at the moment Hamilton is not as complete, flawless and polished as Michael was at his prime, but Lewis is still a youngster with rough edges with most probably his better days still ahead. But some patterns are for me visible. The main area, where I find hard to find a proper comparison between LH and MS yet, is how good Lewis technically is and how well does he act in the role of the so-called team leader. But this is the area, which takes most time in reaching the ultimate level and only time will tell, how will LH write himself into the history books.

Besides all... at the moment Hamilton seems the only conceivable driver, who may threaten MS's records or at least some of them. 8/92 and 10/68 at the age of 23 from Lewis' side. The task may seem hard, but it's not impossible. MS reached those number (8/10) by the age of 25-26.

---

Oh, I see. Again Benetton's traction control is discussed in this topic. Another similarity. MS/LH teams' were cheating. :D

Not going to agree with all your points but a great post. :up:

ioan

7th August 2008, 16:30

Talking about 1994. I guess Schumacher pass on the warm-up lap at Silverstone got as heavy bashing back then as Hamilton's "manoeuvre" in Canada'08?

How the hell can we even compare passing someone for a brief moment during the warm-up lap with running into other cars while they are stopped at the red light?!

Knock-on

7th August 2008, 16:45

How the hell can we even compare passing someone for a brief moment during the warm-up lap with running into other cars while they are stopped at the red light?!

So, someone baiting another driver by purposely overtaking him on the sighting lap, at least a couple of times and refusing to obey FIA Marshall's and Black Flags is being compared to someone that made a mistake in a race.

We are in agreement. they can definitely not be compared.

MrJan

7th August 2008, 17:08

How the hell can we even compare passing someone for a brief moment during the warm-up lap with running into other cars while they are stopped at the red light?!

Open your eyes!!!! Jens is talking about what OTHER PEOPLE SAY. It's not about comparing Hamilton to Schumacher but comparing their critics (bashers).

I guess Schumacher pass on the warm-up lap at Silverstone got as heavy bashing back then as Hamilton's "manoeuvre" in Canada'08

Stop kicking off at every mention of the name Schumacher just because you think people are attacking him.

52Paddy

7th August 2008, 19:19

ioan

7th August 2008, 19:33

Do you see the part in bold? This morning, while reading your post Jens, I genuinely missed this sentence. I thought you wrote:

"I've said it in the past that Lewis in many ways reminds me Michael.
- He wins only thanks to the best car
- He can't handle the pressure
- He wins only because team-mate is not allowed to fight with him
- He makes idiotic moves
- He's arrogant
- He's just lucky ( :p :)
- etc"

If you did write that, you could see why I thought it was your own opinion. Apologies for slating your post with the use of the word BS, lets start over. Have one on me :beer:

The same for me. :)
Sorry for the misunderstanding Jens, you've got my apologies.

jens

7th August 2008, 20:43

Maybe next time I should try to be more precise in expressing myself to avoid creating misunderstanding. :)

jso1985

10th August 2008, 05:24

It was proven that the Bennetton had traction control on the car. But it was never proven that they actually used it.....

just like McLaren had all the Ferrari designs and other stuff just it was never proven they used it on their cars ;)
Talk about "double standards" on which one you believe if it suits your fav driver by some posters in this forum ;)

mstillhere

10th August 2008, 05:49

So comparing Hamilton and Schumacher isn't that silly, in terms of success anyway.

:) :) :) :) :) So funny!!!!! The guy just showed up in F1 he is still putting himself together, won a couple of races and he is COMPARABLE TO SCHUMACKER ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ....... this is good...real good....
ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, This one gets the cake. Congratulations!!!!!

mstillhere

10th August 2008, 06:01

With Michael, there were concerns that he had illegal electronic assistance which is why he won in the Benetton (for example) as it was the best car out there. However, this was never proven..

However we know for a fact that Lewis last year was driving on a silver Ferrari. And that has been proven!!! And despite the cheating they STILL lost the championship.

mstillhere

10th August 2008, 06:53

markabilly

10th August 2008, 11:38

52Paddy

10th August 2008, 11:48

And actually after reading a comment from one of LH best supporters. First he said this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7527602.stm but after hungary he said this: http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=43598. some people are changing their mind about Lewis. Right?

Interesting. This makes me happy. I'm very glad Hill can be as honest as he wants. I would have expected him to support Lewis right to the end, regardless of what he really thought. Nice to see him expressing what he actually thinks. :up:

MrJan

10th August 2008, 12:01

And I just realized that despite other people comparing MS to other drivers I don't recall MS comparing himself to anybody else. Right after a victory he would always, with incredible methodical precision, thank the mechanics, the team and everybody else. When was the last time you heard Kimi, Lewis or Massa for that matter doing the same? Actually in light of the fact that LH has 18 points less that he had last year at this time and Massa and Kimi also with less points they had last year, with nobody being able to take advantage of the several mistakes made by these 3 so called "pilots" (IMO they are just drivers), it shows that these guys are SECOND CLASS drivers to MS, Senna and any other great champion F1 has had. When MS had a superior car the world championship was already over in July. LH? Screwed up his tires instead and rather than progressing in the championship he regressed. MS with a superior car would go strait for the kill.

You talk a lot of s***!!

Firstly Hamilton nearly always says something like "the guys did a great job today" when he has a decent result. Although he is also quick to have a go at them when something goes wrong.

Secondly you can't compare the season when Schumacher won in July to this year because the Ferrari that year was much more dominant than any team this year. Ferrari and McLaren are very equal with each other and trading wins. BMW are also strong and we are seeing Renault and Toyota coming into the fray as well.

You are perfectly right that you can't compare these drivers to MS or Senna, Fangio or any of the others because, with the exception of Senna, all the other guys had a career in F1 rather than just a few years. Hamilton is only in his second year, Kimi won the WDC in his first year with a decent car when he could be number 1 in the team and Massa, well he's just not that good.

I can't believe that so many F1 fans are so stupid in not realising how talented some of the drivers of the current crop are (FA, RK, KR and LH especially). As for Hamilton/Schumacher; he never said that he was as good as Schumacher but that he believes he is capable enough. Regardless of his arrogance, the fact he drives a McLaren or what you think of the bloke it is undoubtable that he is a very, very quick driver.

nigelred5

10th August 2008, 23:03

jso1985

11th August 2008, 02:04

However we know for a fact that Lewis last year was driving on a silver Ferrari. And that has been proven!!! And despite the cheating they STILL lost the championship.

it was never proven they used the designs of Ferrari on their cars(they wre only guilty of possesing it) just as it was never proven Benetton used all the electronic aids found on their car

so don't use double standards.

mstillhere

11th August 2008, 02:43

it was never proven they used the designs of Ferrari on their cars(they wre only guilty of possesing it) just as it was never proven Benetton used all the electronic aids found on their car

so don't use double standards.

Hum...I wonder why they were told this year NOT TO USE some things ( I am not going to bother what they were - that's an old story) that did not belong on their cars under disqualification penalty. I know....McLaren.....SOOOOOO HONEST!!!! They had them but...did not use them.....And you actually believe what you are saying, right? ? Out of curiosity, don't you feel at least a little....unconfortable when you are saying that?

ArrowsFA1

11th August 2008, 08:37

However we know for a fact that Lewis last year was driving on a silver Ferrari. And that has been proven!!!
It's a fun image but that was not proven at all.

ShiftingGears

11th August 2008, 09:19

Hum...I wonder why they were told this year NOT TO USE some things

I wonder. Really, I do.

mstillhere

11th August 2008, 13:48

I wonder. Really, I do.

Pathetic

Rollo

12th August 2008, 02:12

He may very well be as talented as Schumacher but whether he will achieve the same results will depend on McLaren and whether they remain at the leading edge. Schumacher won the WDC with two different teams which only a select few drivers have ever done.

Only 14 drivers have won multiple championships, of those only 4 did them both in the same team. Everyone who has won 3 or more championships did it in multiple teams.

...BTW Schumacher did not build the team - Jean Todt did, well him and Luca di Montezemolo.

ShiftingGears

12th August 2008, 02:25

I think he has the driving talent which gives him the potential to beat records. However he needs to harness it by not making stupid mistakes or cracking under pressure. Time will tell.

555-04Q2

12th August 2008, 11:45

I think he has the driving talent which gives him the potential to beat records. However he needs to harness it by not making stupid mistakes or cracking under pressure. Time will tell.

Have to agree with you. But the mistakes should disappear as he gets older. I think we all forget his is still very very young and has some maturing to do. His F1 career start has been spectacular so far though, top car or not :up:

jso1985

16th August 2008, 04:19

Hum...I wonder why they were told this year NOT TO USE some things ( I am not going to bother what they were - that's an old story) that did not belong on their cars under disqualification penalty. I know....McLaren.....SOOOOOO HONEST!!!! They had them but...did not use them.....And you actually believe what you are saying, right? ? Out of curiosity, don't you feel at least a little....unconfortable when you are saying that?

I'm not saying I believe it, it's just what the FIA thought it happened.

Honestly, I think they used Ferrari designs on their cars as I think Benetton used their illegal electronics during races, otherwise why would both teams have bothered?

what I'm critizicing is that you don't buy FIA's statement about McLaren but you do buy it when it comes to the Benetton farce

PolePosition_1

16th August 2008, 19:00

:) :) :) :) :) So funny!!!!! The guy just showed up in F1 he is still putting himself together, won a couple of races and he is COMPARABLE TO SCHUMACKER ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ....... this is good...real good....
ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, This one gets the cake. Congratulations!!!!!

Well its all nice and well to quote one sentence of my post and take it totally out of context.

As you know if you read my post, they've both won over 30% of the races they've competed in.

I've compared them and got same result in this respect.

I'm not stating Hamilton is better or has achieved more, but in proportion, their success is very similar. Which is quite an achievement considering the huge success MS achieved.

raphael_2

16th August 2008, 19:04

PolePosition_1

16th August 2008, 19:09

However we know for a fact that Lewis last year was driving on a silver Ferrari. And that has been proven!!! And despite the cheating they STILL lost the championship.

Do you actually believe that the McLaren was the exact Ferrari car but in silver?

PolePosition_1

16th August 2008, 19:15

And I just realized that despite other people comparing MS to other drivers I don't recall MS comparing himself to anybody else. Right after a victory he would always, with incredible methodical precision, thank the mechanics, the team and everybody else. When was the last time you heard Kimi, Lewis or Massa for that matter doing the same? Actually in light of the fact that LH has 18 points less that he had last year at this time and Massa and Kimi also with less points they had last year, with nobody being able to take advantage of the several mistakes made by these 3 so called "pilots" (IMO they are just drivers), it shows that these guys are SECOND CLASS drivers to MS, Senna and any other great champion F1 has had. When MS had a superior car the world championship was already over in July. LH? Screwed up his tires instead and rather than progressing in the championship he regressed. MS with a superior car would go strait for the kill. This year we see Massa spinning around around like crazy, Hamilton hitting Kimi in the back, Kimi not qualifying well, etc. and the weeks go by. And you actually call them pilots? Are you kidding? And these are supposed to be the best drivers in the world? Top of the notch? You gentlemen have lowered your standards to what a world champion should do and be and you dont even know it.
Please, when you refer to LH and you want to compare him to anybody else in F1 wait until at least he has won ONE championship. And actually after reading a comment from one of LH best supporters. First he said this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7527602.stm but after hungary he said this: http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=43598. some people are changing their mind about Lewis. Right?

Your quite clearly a huge MS fan. And thats fair enough, I see why you have so much love and respect for him, the man changed the face of F1.

But I can't help but think your viewing this new era of F1 in a slightly biased way.

For example, MS had title cleared up by July, because the Ferrari was 0.7s quicker than the second fastest car. He didn't have any competition, not even his team mate.

Today, the top 10 drivers are seperated by 0.7s !! So obviously the competition is much tighter.

What you think of Alonso beating MS in 2006 with the Renault being regarded as the inferior car to Ferrari? Is Alonso a second class driver?

I'll be honest, I respect MS, think he is one of the best drivers to have raced in F1 ever - but do think your viewing his success in a slightly naive way in that your totally ignoring the circumstances in which he raced in and todays drivers are.

PolePosition_1

16th August 2008, 19:19

just like McLaren had all the Ferrari designs and other stuff just it was never proven they used it on their cars ;)
Talk about "double standards" on which one you believe if it suits your fav driver by some posters in this forum ;)

I think you'll find it was proven McLaren actually used the documents :)

Are you accusing me of double standards?

PolePosition_1

16th August 2008, 19:37

You guys just seem obsessed with bashing Hamilton!

Every great sportsman is arrogant, whether it be Ronaldo, Tiger Woods, or Lewis Hamilton. You have to be confident from the word go. You may say 'yes but these guys have achieved success already and have a right to be cocky or arrogant' - however do you not think Schumacher was arrogant before he won his underserved title in 94? Of course he was!!!

If Lewis Hamilton didn't think he could do as good as job as Schumacher - then what is that saying? You wouldn't be impressed if you heard someone who was challenging for the title saying 'I could never work as hard as Schumacher, and be as good as him'. Even Rubens Barrichello stated when he joined Ferrari he believed he could match Michael Schumacher. Is he arrogant? Cocky? No, I don't think.

Good post, though there is a difference between being cocky and arrogant and being confident. Like when LH said about Massa with regards to Germany, saying he wouldn't have got past him if vice versa.

That came across arrogant, and there was no need for that.

Saying he believes in himself, and thinks he can win etc, that can come across as arrogant, but personally I think thats just confidence, which is good and needed if you want to become the best.

Though personally, I do find him very arrogant, but it doesn't bother me too much. My main reason for disliking him is the constant man-love we get from ITV with regards to Lewis. Its too much for any serious F1 fan to take. Which is creating an "anti" vibe towards him by F1 fans. Which is ironic really.

raphael_2

16th August 2008, 21:03

Good post, though there is a difference between being cocky and arrogant and being confident. Like when LH said about Massa with regards to Germany, saying he wouldn't have got past him if vice versa.

That came across arrogant, and there was no need for that.

Saying he believes in himself, and thinks he can win etc, that can come across as arrogant, but personally I think thats just confidence, which is good and needed if you want to become the best.

Though personally, I do find him very arrogant, but it doesn't bother me too much. My main reason for disliking him is the constant man-love we get from ITV with regards to Lewis. Its too much for any serious F1 fan to take. Which is creating an "anti" vibe towards him by F1 fans. Which is ironic really.

I don't think hamilton stating the obvious that Massa did a poor job in defending his position at Hockenhiem is all that bad a thing. You moan about drivers to PR conscience, yet as soon as a driver does people like yourself moan and critizise the guy!

Let the drivers have a personality, please

PolePosition_1

16th August 2008, 22:22

I don't think hamilton stating the obvious that Massa did a poor job in defending his position at Hockenhiem is all that bad a thing. You moan about drivers to PR conscience, yet as soon as a driver does people like yourself moan and critizise the guy!

Let the drivers have a personality, please

He didn't say he did a bad job. He said if he'd been Massa he wouldn't have got past. So he was being cocky. Full stop. And considering Massa made Lewis look like a karthorse after first lap of Hungary, I found it funny.

Plus note I also said I don't actually mind Lewis being arrogant, so to accusing me of moaning and critizising the guy is a bit harsh. Maybe read my posts more carefully rather than skimming it and jumping to conclusion :)

Welcome to the forum btw.

raphael_2

16th August 2008, 22:27

He didn't say he did a bad job. He said if he'd been Massa he wouldn't have got past. So he was being cocky. Full stop. And considering Massa made Lewis look like a karthorse after first lap of Hungary, I found it funny.

Plus note I also said I don't actually mind Lewis being arrogant, so to accusing me of moaning and critizising the guy is a bit harsh. Maybe read my posts more carefully rather than skimming it and jumping to conclusion :)

Welcome to the forum btw.

It wasn't directed to you personally. It was a general comment, stating people moan about the drivers being too PR orientated, yet are critizised for stating their opinion.

Hamilton stating he could and would have done a better job is completely fine to me. I wouldn't expect him to come out and say 'No, I wouldn't have been able to kept me behind in Massa's shoes either' would you when asked the question.

If that's being 'cocky' - fine. I like drivers with a character. It's a shame there aren't more drivers who speak their minds. Afterall, we've already lost Irvine, Montoya, Villeneuve and now DC.

PolePosition_1

16th August 2008, 22:31

It wasn't directed to you personally. It was a general comment, stating people moan about the drivers being too PR orientated, yet are critizised for stating their opinion.

Hamilton stating he could and would have done a better job is completely fine to me. I wouldn't expect him to come out and say 'No, I wouldn't have been able to kept me behind in Massa's shoes either' would you when asked the question.

If that's being 'cocky' - fine. I like drivers with a character. It's a shame there aren't more drivers who speak their minds. Afterall, we've already lost Irvine, Montoya, Villeneuve and now DC.

Thats cool then, as I too like drivers with characters. Its needed in F1.

And once again, yeah it is cocky to say he'd have kept Massa behind if he'd had car 0.7s a lap slower and dodgy brakes. But as I've said, I don't mind it, its quite funny and entertaining.

raphael_2

16th August 2008, 23:07

janneppi

17th August 2008, 19:02

It's nice to see such a devoted forum member, so much to say that one has to create a support account for getting more discussion out there. :D
Which BTW is not allowed here.

jso1985

17th August 2008, 22:19

I think you'll find it was proven McLaren actually used the documents :)

Are you accusing me of double standards?

they used it for that thingy of the tyre pressures or something.

but it was never proven they used it for the design of their car.

F1boat

18th August 2008, 07:05

About arrogance of champions - Michael Phelps proved that a great champion can be humble. :)
However, I have noted that Lewis is changing the tone of his interviews and now is repeating how close and unpredictable it is.
Which is much better, IMO.

PolePosition_1

18th August 2008, 10:00

they used it for that thingy of the tyre pressures or something.

but it was never proven they used it for the design of their car.

Yeah....so they did use the documentation to gain an advantage :) .

But I agree, the actual design aspect I don't think they used to benefit themselve, simply because it was irrelevant to them, the Ferrari and Mclaren for 2007 was very different, primarily one having a longer wheel base and Mclaren shorter.

There was however the late scandal early this year, about Mclaren incorporating Ferrari's design for this years car, and they were told to not go there by the FIA.

Whether or not this was coincidental or purposely copying Ferrari I'm not too sure. I doubt there is a straight forward explanation of that, its probably a case of one persons word against another.

jso1985

21st August 2008, 03:13

sure but that doesn't make last year McLaren a "Silver Ferrari" right? :)

which was the starting point of this discussion

Knock-on

21st August 2008, 09:22

Yeah....so they did use the documentation to gain an advantage :) .

But I agree, the actual design aspect I don't think they used to benefit themselves, simply because it was irrelevant to them, the Ferrari and Mclaren for 2007 was very different, primarily one having a longer wheel base and Mclaren shorter.

There was however the late scandal early this year, about Mclaren incorporating Ferrari's design for this years car, and they were told to not go there by the FIA.

Whether or not this was coincidental or purposely copying Ferrari I'm not too sure. I doubt there is a straight forward explanation of that, its probably a case of one persons word against another.

Correct me if I'm wrong but there was no evidence that the Ferrari documentation was used in any way apart from 2 specific, and admitted instances.

The first was to question the FIA as to whether a proposed element of a car would be illegal or not. The FIA confirmed that it would be illegal even though the Ferrari had been racing with the device installed and consequently had to change the illegal device.

The second stemmed from some information PdlR had gleaned from MC which PdlR passed onto his friend FA who in turn used this information to attempt to blackmail RD into giving him preferential driver status.

I believe those two issues are not disputed and are accepted but am not aware of any other evidence that the Ferrari documentation was used to design the McLaren.

So we have the dossier used to stop Ferrari using an illegal device (some might call this cheating) and as a tool against McLaren to unsuccessfully blackmail them.

Hmmmm. Big advantage.

PolePosition_1

21st August 2008, 09:54

sure but that doesn't make last year McLaren a "Silver Ferrari" right? :)

which was the starting point of this discussion

Absolutely not. I agree.

PolePosition_1

21st August 2008, 10:05

Correct me if I'm wrong but there was no evidence that the Ferrari documentation was used in any way apart from 2 specific, and admitted instances.

The first was to question the FIA as to whether a proposed element of a car would be illegal or not. The FIA confirmed that it would be illegal even though the Ferrari had been racing with the device installed and consequently had to change the illegal device.

The second stemmed from some information PdlR had gleaned from MC which PdlR passed onto his friend FA who in turn used this information to attempt to blackmail RD into giving him preferential driver status.

I believe those two issues are not disputed and are accepted but am not aware of any other evidence that the Ferrari documentation was used to design the McLaren.

So we have the dossier used to stop Ferrari using an illegal device (some might call this cheating) and as a tool against McLaren to unsuccessfully blackmail them.

Hmmmm. Big advantage.

I have a slightly different view, albeit I can see exactly where you are coming from.

Firstly, the Ferrari device was using a loophole in the regulations. So it was totally unsporting, however technically within the regulations. So yeah, you could question Ferrari's integrity. But at end of day, it they had it with a loophole. Only once this was closed did Ferrari have to change this.

And then the admitted instances, McLaren gained an advantage, end of we can't deny that. But it was a tiny advantage. Did it merit $100m fine and disqualification from the season?

In my view, not at all, it was all a case the FIA being Ferraris International Assistant once again. It should be noted the gravity of having that information within McLaren, and thats spying taken one step to far.

But spying is part of F1, who is to judge the difference between remembering information from one team to another and actually having it on paper? The concepts are more important than the details in F1, because the details are too specific to be directly applied.

And for that reason, fine was much too harsh. We also then have the issue they couldn't actually prove 100% they used it apart from the 2 instances admitted.

Dunno, as discussed in 1994 topic, they couldn't prove 100% Benetton used TC and LC, so they escaped unpunished. In the FIA publication, a lot of the information they used to defend their punishment, was all circumstancial, based on them assuming they used it.

But whats done is done.

Knock-on

21st August 2008, 11:13

I have a slightly different view, albeit I can see exactly where you are coming from.

Firstly, the Ferrari device was using a loophole in the regulations. So it was totally unsporting, however technically within the regulations. So yeah, you could question Ferrari's integrity. But at end of day, it they had it with a loophole. Only once this was closed did Ferrari have to change this.

Don't know if I agree with you here.

McLaren submitted a virtual copy of a pretty fundamental piece of the car that was raced on the Ferrari and were told categorically that it was illegal. (I can search for it if you want)

They had also queried it to CW's department before the start of the season and 2 or 3 times, the FIA did nothing until they submitted the design Ferrari were and had used.

Suddenly Ferrari stopped using it. No laws were changed or tightened up. It was just changed for no specific reason.

You have to ask what is worse. Racing a car with parts that would be illegal if caught (not that it was ever likely they would be caught ;) ) or knowing what tyre pressures a competitor might have.

And then the admitted instances, McLaren gained an advantage, end of we can't deny that. But it was a tiny advantage. Did it merit $100m fine and disqualification from the season?

In my view, not at all, it was all a case the FIA being Ferraris International Assistant once again. It should be noted the gravity of having that information within McLaren, and that's spying taken one step to far.

But spying is part of F1, who is to judge the difference between remembering information from one team to another and actually having it on paper? The concepts are more important than the details in F1, because the details are too specific to be directly applied.

And for that reason, fine was much too harsh. We also then have the issue they couldn't actually prove 100% they used it apart from the 2 instances admitted.

Dunno, as discussed in 1994 topic, they couldn't prove 100% Benetton used TC and LC, so they escaped unpunished. In the FIA publication, a lot of the information they used to defend their punishment, was all circumstantial, based on them assuming they used it.

But whats done is done.

Renault were guilty of a similar offence and were let off scott free AFTER all this happened.

Ferrari were using a device that the FIA CONFIRMED WOULD BE ILLEGAL if used yet received no penalty.

I don't think if we have a level playing field, these 2 teams should have gone unpunished.

I DO think McLaren should have been punished as technically they were in possession of the dossier and had the opportunity to use the info on it even though it was not proved they did use it (sound like a LC/TC thread ;) ) and although $100m and disqualification was outrageous, I accept that it was the punishment metered out (even though they broke no FIA regulations).

However, expecting everyone to be treated the same obviously demonstrates hypocrisy and bias on my part :D

PolePosition_1

21st August 2008, 15:40

Don't know if I agree with you here.

McLaren submitted a virtual copy of a pretty fundamental piece of the car that was raced on the Ferrari and were told categorically that it was illegal. (I can search for it if you want)

They had also queried it to CW's department before the start of the season and 2 or 3 times, the FIA did nothing until they submitted the design Ferrari were and had used.

Suddenly Ferrari stopped using it. No laws were changed or tightened up. It was just changed for no specific reason.

You have to ask what is worse. Racing a car with parts that would be illegal if caught (not that it was ever likely they would be caught ;) ) or knowing what tyre pressures a competitor might have.

Renault were guilty of a similar offence and were let off scott free AFTER all this happened.

Ferrari were using a device that the FIA CONFIRMED WOULD BE ILLEGAL if used yet received no penalty.

I don't think if we have a level playing field, these 2 teams should have gone unpunished.

I DO think McLaren should have been punished as technically they were in possession of the dossier and had the opportunity to use the info on it even though it was not proved they did use it (sound like a LC/TC thread ;) ) and although $100m and disqualification was outrageous, I accept that it was the punishment metered out (even though they broke no FIA regulations).

However, expecting everyone to be treated the same obviously demonstrates hypocrisy and bias on my part :D

Ok, I don't quite remember that being the case, but as I read you post it did sound very familiar, if you could source it for me that would be great :) .

With regards to Renault, are you talking in reference to the spring they were using, I forgot the exact details. But remember thinking it was a disgrace it got banned. It'd been used since the end of 2004 I think it was, and was only banned in Germany 2006, when Ferrari were struggling. Again, in my view just as a way of getting Ferrari more into the picture.

ioan

21st August 2008, 15:52

sure but that doesn't make last year McLaren a "Silver Ferrari" right? :)

which was the starting point of this discussion

You are right it didn't make last years McLaren a "Silver Ferrari", it almost made this years McLaren a "Silver Ferrari". But they were unlucky as the FIA decided that it would be not fair! ;)

ioan

21st August 2008, 15:55

Ok, I don't quite remember that being the case, but as I read you post it did sound very familiar, if you could source it for me that would be great :) .

With regards to Renault, are you talking in reference to the spring they were using, I forgot the exact details. But remember thinking it was a disgrace it got banned. It'd been used since the end of 2004 I think it was, and was only banned in Germany 2006, when Ferrari were struggling. Again, in my view just as a way of getting Ferrari more into the picture.

The Renault Mass damper system was not questioned by Ferrari, who were running a similar system, it was questioned, like so many times in recent times by McLaren, who reportedly weren't able to develop a similar system.
Please do not put everything on Ferrari's back.

21st August 2008, 16:34

PolePosition_1

22nd August 2008, 08:49

The Renault Mass damper system was not questioned by Ferrari, who were running a similar system, it was questioned, like so many times in recent times by McLaren, who reportedly weren't able to develop a similar system.
Please do not put everything on Ferrari's back.

I'm not saying Ferrari reported this. I'm aware McLaren reported this. However it was one if not Renaults biggest advantage it had over its rivals, including Ferrari.

And it was banned after being part of the sport for more than 1 season. Just as Ferrari seemed to be losing fight.

To me to was a case of FIA favouring Ferrari. But I'd like to stress I have no proof of this, and its just my opinion :)

PolePosition_1

22nd August 2008, 08:54

Let's not forget too that Mclaren were in possession of Ferrari race strategy and used this knowledge.

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

"Stopping strategy
3.21 As mentioned above, Mr. de la Rosa’s e-mail on 25 March 2007 13.02 stated “all the information from Ferrari is very reliable. It comes from Nigel Stepney, their former chief mechanic – I don’t know what post he holds now. He’s the same person who told us in Australia that Kimi was stopping in lap 18. He’s very friendly with Mike Coughlan, our Chief Designer, and he told him that.
3.22 The evidence before the WMSC is that Mr. Räikkönen (Kimi) actually stopped at lap 19 at the Australian GP. However, the fact remains that Mr de la Rosa cited this information as a reason to believe that Stepney was a reliable source of information. This strongly suggests that McLaren had at least taken account of this information in determining its own strategy.
3.23 The evidence before the WMSC also demonstrates that Stepney had fed information through Coughlan regarding which lap one or more of the Ferrari drivers would stop at during the Bahrain Grand Prix. McLaren has sought to discredit the significance of this information as it proved in the end to be inaccurate. However, the evidence before the WMSC was that the safety car had been deployed early in the race making it likely that stopping strategies would be adjusted. This deployment of the safety car could not have been known in advance of the race and the fact that the stoppage predictions proved inaccurate does not mean that McLaren had not considered and taken account of the information that had been received in determining its own strategy before the race"

3.24 In any case, as there is no legitimate context in which another teams’ stopping strategy would be revealed to McLaren in advance, there is very clear evidence that both drivers knew that they were receiving unauthorised and confidential
Ferrari information. To the WMSC’s knowledge, no effort was taken to report or stem this flow"

That, funnily enough, is never mention by Mclaren fans when they bleat about the punishment.

Well, all due respect, but I'd say about 95% of the paddock know what lap or strategy every car is on in the race within 1 lap either side.

I don't really think McLaren are only ones to have sources within other teams telling them what lap other cars are pitting.

Even James Allen and Martin Brundle sometimes tell us when a driver is pitting.

All teams have spies within each other. This is the norm, which is why I disagreed with sections of the FIA report such as above.

Fair play, they had documentation, spying to that degree is rare in F1 and should be stamped out, but spying about finding out strategies is common. Yet they used that as part of explanation for punishment, yet leave the other teams continue.

If the British legal system was run like this, the country would be rioting! And the British are known for taking things lying down!

So yeah, feel free to have a go at McLaren for knowing fuel strategies, but should be noted the other teams all do the same.

Knock-on

22nd August 2008, 09:27

Let's not forget too that Mclaren were in possession of Ferrari race strategy and used this knowledge.

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

"Stopping strategy
3.21 As mentioned above, Mr. de la Rosa’s e-mail on 25 March 2007 13.02 stated “all the information from Ferrari is very reliable. It comes from Nigel Stepney, their former chief mechanic – I don’t know what post he holds now. He’s the same person who told us in Australia that Kimi was stopping in lap 18. He’s very friendly with Mike Coughlan, our Chief Designer, and he told him that.
3.22 The evidence before the WMSC is that Mr. Räikkönen (Kimi) actually stopped at lap 19 at the Australian GP. However, the fact remains that Mr de la Rosa cited this information as a reason to believe that Stepney was a reliable source of information. This strongly suggests that McLaren had at least taken account of this information in determining its own strategy.
3.23 The evidence before the WMSC also demonstrates that Stepney had fed information through Coughlan regarding which lap one or more of the Ferrari drivers would stop at during the Bahrain Grand Prix. McLaren has sought to discredit the significance of this information as it proved in the end to be inaccurate. However, the evidence before the WMSC was that the safety car had been deployed early in the race making it likely that stopping strategies would be adjusted. This deployment of the safety car could not have been known in advance of the race and the fact that the stoppage predictions proved inaccurate does not mean that McLaren had not considered and taken account of the information that had been received in determining its own strategy before the race"

3.24 In any case, as there is no legitimate context in which another teams’ stopping strategy would be revealed to McLaren in advance, there is very clear evidence that both drivers knew that they were receiving unauthorised and confidential
Ferrari information. To the WMSC’s knowledge, no effort was taken to report or stem this flow"

That, funnily enough, is never mention by Mclaren fans when they bleat about the punishment.

Is anyone disputing this?

What I think amazing is that Ferrari fans love quoting this information from Stepney but utterly dismiss Strepneys claim that the flow of information was 2 way :D

Best to gloss over that admission, right? ;)

Lastly, this flow of information should be punished why? Can you tell me what FIA regulation or legal stipulation was being transgressed?

MrJan

22nd August 2008, 09:37

Well, all due respect, but I'd say about 95% of the paddock know what lap or strategy every car is on in the race within 1 lap either side.

I don't really think McLaren are only ones to have sources within other teams telling them what lap other cars are pitting.

Even James Allen and Martin Brundle sometimes tell us when a driver is pitting.

All teams have spies within each other. This is the norm, which is why I disagreed with sections of the FIA report such as above.

Fair play, they had documentation, spying to that degree is rare in F1 and should be stamped out, but spying about finding out strategies is common. Yet they used that as part of explanation for punishment, yet leave the other teams continue.

If the British legal system was run like this, the country would be rioting! And the British are known for taking things lying down!

So yeah, feel free to have a go at McLaren for knowing fuel strategies, but should be noted the other teams all do the same.

Brundle said the other week that most teams use microphones and fancy technology to determine fuel strategy and gear ratios. It's areas like that which are costing F1 a huge sum of money each year :eek:

If anyone thinks that the top F1 teams (including Ferrari and McLaren) aren't spying on each other and exchanging information then they are extremely blinkered. All sport is corrupt and when there is as much money involved as in F1 it is inevitable that people will find ways to cheat, hell even club racing at teh lowest level is full of people lying and cheating.

Knock-on

22nd August 2008, 11:03

Ok, I don't quite remember that being the case, but as I read you post it did sound very familiar, if you could source it for me that would be great :) .

With regards to Renault, are you talking in reference to the spring they were using, I forgot the exact details. But remember thinking it was a disgrace it got banned. It'd been used since the end of 2004 I think it was, and was only banned in Germany 2006, when Ferrari were struggling. Again, in my view just as a way of getting Ferrari more into the picture.

Will have a look for a link.

I'm not talking about the Renault Mass Damper. I don't agree that it should have been banned mid season as it was very unfair to Renault who had designed their car around it. Then suddenly, the FIA bann something mid season which they had passed before the season started the same as the Michelin tyres were.

What I was talking about is Renault developing and racing parts from stolen McLaren blueprints.

PolePosition_1

22nd August 2008, 11:12

Will have a look for a link.

I'm not talking about the Renault Mass Damper. I don't agree that it should have been banned mid season as it was very unfair to Renault who had designed their car around it. Then suddenly, the FIA bann something mid season which they had passed before the season started the same as the Michelin tyres were.

What I was talking about is Renault developing and racing parts from stolen McLaren blueprints.

Awesome, if you could source me up with the Renault story as well that would be great :)

22nd August 2008, 13:09

Well, all due respect, but I'd say about 95% of the paddock know what lap or strategy every car is on in the race within 1 lap either side.

So yeah, feel free to have a go at McLaren for knowing fuel strategies, but should be noted the other teams all do the same.

Not "all other teams" are getting info from a "mole", to use the Mclaren engineers phrase as qouted in the same FIA document.

If you have this information, please post it to the FIA.

All teams keep a note of how long the nozzle is attached to the oppositions cars when it's in the pits, but since the pits is an open area that is fair game, albeit not an exact way of procuring definitive information.

Having turned up at a GP already knowing what strategy your main rival is running due to information given to you by a "mole" is certainly not fair game.

Is anyone disputing this?

What I think amazing is that Ferrari fans love quoting this information from Stepney but utterly dismiss Strepneys claim that the flow of information was 2 way :D

Best to gloss over that admission, right? ;)

Best to provide some proof, such as the documentation the FIA found on Mclaren's computers, before assuming anything Mr "I didn't do it....oh, yes, actually I did" Stepney has to say.

Don't suppose you have such documentation to hand? No, didn't think so. Therefore you only have the unsubstantiated claim of a discredited witness to base your claim on.

Which, as any lawyer would tell you, is laughable.

I
Lastly, this flow of information should be punished why? Can you tell me what FIA regulation or legal stipulation was being transgressed?

"The World Motor Sport Council finds McLaren to be in breach the International Sporting Code for possessing confidential Ferrari information"

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2007/July/260707-01.html

Not to mention...

"Briefing Note - Law of Confidential Information in the UK

Springboard Principle

Where information has been acquired unlawfully, the springboard principle applies to prevent the recipient and others utilising the information, but not indefinitely. The factors to consider in assessing whether the principle will apply include the means and manner by which the information becomes public; by what other lawful means could the defendant acquire the information and the defendant’s state of mind in disclosing the information.

http://www.gillhams.com/articles/168.cfm

Bang to rights, guvnor.

22nd August 2008, 13:11

Awesome, if you could source me up with the Renault story as well that would be great :)

http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2007/12/7188.html

There's a link on the page to a pdf of the full transcript.

ArrowsFA1

22nd August 2008, 13:18

Having turned up at a GP already knowing what strategy your main rival is running due to information given to you by a "mole" is certainly not fair game.
Particularly when it turned out to be duff info :p

PolePosition_1

22nd August 2008, 13:58

Particularly when it turned out to be duff info :p

To be fair, I think the SC came out, which changed Ferrari's strategy, but it was originally correct.

PolePosition_1

22nd August 2008, 14:01

Not "all other teams" are getting info from a "mole", to use the Mclaren engineers phrase as qouted in the same FIA document.

If you have this information, please post it to the FIA.

All teams keep a note of how long the nozzle is attached to the oppositions cars when it's in the pits, but since the pits is an open area that is fair game, albeit not an exact way of procuring definitive information.

Having turned up at a GP already knowing what strategy your main rival is running due to information given to you by a "mole" is certainly not fair game.

Best to provide some proof, such as the documentation the FIA found on Mclaren's computers, before assuming anything Mr "I didn't do it....oh, yes, actually I did" Stepney has to say.

Don't suppose you have such documentation to hand? No, didn't think so. Therefore you only have the unsubstantiated claim of a discredited witness to base your claim on.

Which, as any lawyer would tell you, is laughable.

"The World Motor Sport Council finds McLaren to be in breach the International Sporting Code for possessing confidential Ferrari information"

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2007/July/260707-01.html

Not to mention...

"Briefing Note - Law of Confidential Information in the UK

Springboard Principle

Where information has been acquired unlawfully, the springboard principle applies to prevent the recipient and others utilising the information, but not indefinitely. The factors to consider in assessing whether the principle will apply include the means and manner by which the information becomes public; by what other lawful means could the defendant acquire the information and the defendant’s state of mind in disclosing the information.

http://www.gillhams.com/articles/168.cfm

Bang to rights, guvnor.

I thought it was common knowledge teams had moles (or contacts) within eachothers team which would leak out information such as pit strategy.

When you worked in F1 for Benetton, did you work back at their base or were you a member who travelled to all their GPs?

Knock-on

22nd August 2008, 14:10

Awesome, if you could source me up with the Renault story as well that would be great :)

OK, the Renault debarcle.

Phil Mackereth moved to Renault from McLaren and distributed confidential information to at least 10 of Renaults Snr engineers including the Chief designer, head of mechanical design, head of transmission and Deputy technical Director.

McLaren became aware of this when an ex-Renault employee spilled the beans to McLaren a year later. At this time, Renault found out that they were in the and approached the FIA saying they had no idea what Phil was up to and as soon as they did, they did the decent thing...... unfortunately it was 12 months late ;)

Indeed, Pat Symonds approached the FIA over a J-Damper that McLaren were considering in a similar way that McLaren approached the FIA over the damper Ferrari had raced. In both instances, the FIA confirmed they would be illegal. Only difference being that the McLaren one wasn't used in a race but it does demonstrate that the McLaren data was used throughout Renault. So endemic was PM's theft of data that even though he was in hydraulics, he stole on details of the engine mounting points for Tim Densham (Chief designer) proving that the data stolen was used by Renault.

Another example is that although PM was the Hydraulics man, he stole details of the McLaren fuel delivery system and tank and even though he had no experience in this area, was immediately put to work on the fuel system design when joining Renault.

Quite a few years ago, I mentioned on here that McLaren had developed a CF seamless gear change (remember that Arrows?) which became common knowledge in 2005. PM gave Densham and Osgood (the head of transmission) plans for that design which that had for several months.

The information stolen by PM included some of the most sensitive data at McLaren. In fact, some of the data was impossible to be printed out because of it's sensitivity and PM resorted to doing "screen dumps" to get the information out of the system, email it to his personal account, forward it to Renault where it was renamed to avoid detection. This information was the full technical specifications of the McLaren car!!

Charlie Whiting looked at the Renault for a day, spoke to the engineers, took their word that they had seen the McLaren data but hadn't used it and passed the Renault with a clean bill of health. That was it! The McLaren was ripped to bits, designs scrutinised and eventually concluded that there was no evidence that the Ferrari designs were used. Yet Renault had full use of technical data, had someone working with that data on Fuel Cell design etc, etc yet all the FIA do is have a chat with the engineers, give the car a cursory once over and sweep it all under the carpet.

Lastly, Renault claim that they have erased the information from their live system and cannot recover single files from their backup tapes. As a few are aware, I know a little about IT and in particular, am an expert in backup and disaster recovery of IT systems. This is wholly false and even if a file was striped across multiple tape drives, a recovery could be set to retrieve a particular file and discard everything else.

Whitewash anyone?

Knock-on

22nd August 2008, 14:26

Best to provide some proof, such as the documentation the FIA found on Mclaren's computers, before assuming anything Mr "I didn't do it....oh, yes, actually I did" Stepney has to say.

Don't suppose you have such documentation to hand? No, didn't think so. Therefore you only have the unsubstantiated claim of a discredited witness to base your claim on.

Which, as any lawyer would tell you, is laughable.

So, you're saying that there wasn't a flow of information back.

No problem, all I can do is quote someone who was directly involved. It cannot be proved (at this time) so it's up to the individual to form an opinion wouldn't you say.

Personally, I think it highly likely that they would have discussed the merits or otherwise of their respective teams.

"The World Motor Sport Council finds McLaren to be in breach the International Sporting Code for possessing confidential Ferrari information"

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2007/July/260707-01.html

Any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally.

Were they guilty of fraud? No
Were they proved to have used the information prejudicial to a competitor? No
The only one you can argue is that having the dossier was prejudicial to motorsport. Can't see how but it's so whishy washy, you can just about argue anything is such as Max's recent exposure even though he was proven not to have done anything wrong either.

Not to mention...

"Briefing Note - Law of Confidential Information in the UK

Springboard Principle

Where information has been acquired unlawfully, the springboard principle applies to prevent the recipient and others utilising the information, but not indefinitely. The factors to consider in assessing whether the principle will apply include the means and manner by which the information becomes public; by what other lawful means could the defendant acquire the information and the defendant’s state of mind in disclosing the information.

http://www.gillhams.com/articles/168.cfm

Bang to rights, guvnor.

That's nothing to do with the FIA so irrelevant.

ArrowsFA1

22nd August 2008, 14:30

To be fair, I think the SC came out, which changed Ferrari's strategy, but it was originally correct.
Any number of different factors change strategy 'on the fly' so a pre-race tip off is as much use as the info gleaned from the microphones and fancy technology that Mr Jan Yeo mentioned earlier.

Knock-on

22nd August 2008, 14:34

Awesome, if you could source me up with the Renault story as well that would be great :)

Sorry, forgot the link.

http://fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/wmsc08/Documents/Transcript_6_Dec_2007.pdf

Knock-on

22nd August 2008, 14:38

Any number of different factors change strategy 'on the fly' so a pre-race tip off is as much use as the info gleaned from the microphones and fancy technology that Mr Jan Yeo mentioned earlier.

Don't know if I agree there Arrows. I've just had a tip that Lewis is going to win Sunday. Now, feel free to use this privilidged information to go and put a couple of quid down the bookies but when it's proved I'm correct, you may get fined £100m by the FIA for cheating. Know what I mean ;)

Nods as good as a wink to a blind man :D

22nd August 2008, 14:42

So, you're saying that there wasn't a flow of information back.

No problem, all I can do is quote someone who was directly involved. It cannot be proved (at this time) so it's up to the individual to form an opinion wouldn't you say.

Personally, I think it highly likely that they would have discussed the merits or otherwise of their respective teams.

Thinking it is highly likely is not the same as providing proof.

The only one you can argue is that having the dossier was prejudicial to motorsport. Can't see how but it's so whishy washy, you can just about argue anything is such as Max's recent exposure even though he was proven not to have done anything wrong either.

So you don't think having a rival teams technical info & strategy info is prejudicial?

So please explain why all F1 teams have non-Disclosure agreements with all employees?

After all, if such information is not prejudicial (not to mention valuable) to a rival team, then non-disclosure wouldn't be an issue.

780 pages of full designs & technical information is about as highly prejudicial as you can get.

Hence the deserved fine.

22nd August 2008, 14:48

I thought it was common knowledge teams had moles (or contacts) within eachothers team which would leak out information such as pit strategy.

There were none that I knew of.

22nd August 2008, 14:55

That's nothing to do with the FIA so irrelevant.

I'm sorry. It's just when you posted.....

Can you tell me what FIA regulation or legal stipulation was being transgressed?......I thought you meant 'legal' as in Statute Law.

Once again I apologise for pointing out that due to Mclaren's acceptance of technical information they knew to be obtained through illegal means, they were actually breaking criminal law.

But like you said, it had nothing to do with the FIA so is irrelevant*

*Irrelevant if you don't consider a criminal act to be shameful, dishonest and deserving punishment.

Knock-on

22nd August 2008, 15:07

I'm sorry. It's just when you posted...........I thought you meant 'legal' as in Statute Law.

Once again I apologise for pointing out that due to Mclaren's acceptance of technical information they knew to be obtained through illegal means, they were actually breaking criminal law.

But like you said, it had nothing to do with the FIA so is irrelevant*

*Irrelevant if you don't consider a criminal act to be shameful, dishonest and deserving punishment.

You're going off track again. Come back before a train runs your ass over :)

If there was criminal justification to prosecute then the CPS would have obliged wouldn't they?

After all, it wasn't as if this was secret and the police weren't closely involved.

However, they didn't so I assume you consider they are not guilty of a criminal act and are not shameful, dishonest and deserving punishment.

If you have evidence otherwise, may I suggest you contact http://www.surrey.police.uk/

Otherwise, a finely honed legal brain like yours should know the term for making malicious or defaming allegations which are untrue.

ArrowsFA1

22nd August 2008, 15:09

Thinking it is highly likely is not the same as providing proof.
The FIA's investigation of McLaren is littered with highly likelies, or more particularly "it appears", and yet they were deemed guilty.

Knock-on

22nd August 2008, 15:15

Thinking it is highly likely is not the same as providing proof.

Quite agree. That's why I said it is a matter for basing an opinion on the availible facts.

So you don't think having a rival teams technical info & strategy info is prejudicial?

Thinking it is highly likely is not the same as providing proof. (where have I heard that before ;) )

If the information were incorporated into the McLaren, then I would have agreed with you. However, the FIA concluded that there was no evidence of this.

We have to deal with the facts and not opinions. If you are stating an opinion, then that's fine but you cannot back it up with facts in this instance as the facts say the opposite.

So please explain why all F1 teams have non-Disclosure agreements with all employees?

After all, if such information is not prejudicial (not to mention valuable) to a rival team, then non-disclosure wouldn't be an issue.

780 pages of full designs & technical information is about as highly prejudicial as you can get.

Again, it was not proven.

Hence the deserved fine.

Did they deserve a fine? Well, legally perhaps not but they were in posession of the document and regardless of whether they used it to their benefit, they did "deserve" to be punished. I have said from the outset that if they were guilty (and guilty in my eyes) then they deserver to be punished.

They were.

Other have been dealt with dramatically differently.

PolePosition_1

22nd August 2008, 16:27

The FIA's investigation of McLaren is littered with highly likelies, or more particularly "it appears", and yet they were deemed guilty.

Agreed.

When I first debated and discussed this I thought the same. I ripped the FIAs document apart.

They gave evidence McLaren had it etc etc, but when it came to justifying the fine, majority of it was based on possibilities.

In a court of law, this wouldn't be allowed to happen.

And considering the FIA's lack of punishment in past because it can't prove it 100%, it was strange to see them take this approach....in particular because it was McLaren involved. Just adds fuel to the fire...

PS: Thanks for link Knock On

22nd August 2008, 17:57

We have to deal with the facts and not opinions. If you are stating an opinion, then that's fine but you cannot back it up with facts in this instance as the facts say the opposite.

Again, it was not proven.

Did they deserve a fine? Well, legally perhaps not but they were in posession of the document and regardless of whether they used it to their benefit, they did "deserve" to be punished. I have said from the outset that if they were guilty (and guilty in my eyes) then they deserver to be punished.

They were.

Other have been dealt with dramatically differently.

It was thoroughly proven that Mclaren had confidential Ferrari documents.

So, like I said, bang-to-rights guvnor.

Others, namely Renault, have not been dealt with dramatically differently. Mclaren were not punished originally.

It was only when evidence came to light, evidence later acknowledged by Martin Whitmarsh, that Mclaren had been less than open when given the opportunity to admit the depth to which their technical team had access to Ferrari information, that they recieved the fine.

Renault cooperated fully, to the extent that they opened their doors and computers to Mclaren to find Mackereth's info and the extent it had been assimilated.

Mclaren made no such offer either to the FIA or Ferrari.

In fact, they did the opposite. It was only when the FIA forced the issue and sent their investigative IT consultants into Mclaren, did the full depth of the assimilation of Ferrari technical information become clear.

This happened after Mclaren had been in front of two hearings. At neither did they take the opportunity for full disclosure.

To say that "others were treated dramatically differently" is therefore false.

Mclaren had two opportunities to be treated as the others, but their reluctance/refusal to do so cost them, as would passing up the opportunity to "plea bargain" by a defendant then found guilty in a court of law.

Only the most dyed-in-the-wool (or should that be denial-in-the-wool?) Mclaren fan and/or somebody with no grasp of the situation would fail to
A) Mention the dramatic differences that Mclarens actions took compared to others
B) Not see that Mclarens actions in refusing to cooperate openly is the dramatic difference.

Mclaren were given every opportunity to go to the FIA and fully disclose. Had they done so, then they would have been treated in the same way as Benetton in 1994, themselves in 1994 and Renault in 2007.

In effect, Mclaren brought the crap in on themselves.

22nd August 2008, 18:00

They gave evidence McLaren had it etc etc, but when it came to justifying the fine, majority of it was based on possibilities.

No, the fine was justified in that Mclaren had not taken the opportunity to fully investigate themselves and be open & honest.

Mclaren denied any involvement by any of its employees at the original July hearing.

They later, after the release of the FIA report in December, had to apologise for that, thereby acknowledging their refusal to fully cooperate.

22nd August 2008, 18:10

You're going off track again. Come back before a train runs your ass over :)

If there was criminal justification to prosecute then the CPS would have obliged wouldn't they?

After all, it wasn't as if this was secret and the police weren't closely involved.

However, they didn't so I assume you consider they are not guilty of a criminal act and are not shameful, dishonest and deserving punishment.

If you have evidence otherwise, may I suggest you contact http://www.surrey.police.uk/

Otherwise, a finely honed legal brain like yours should know the term for making malicious or defaming allegations which are untrue.

http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/formulaone/article.html?in_article_id=215277&in_page_id=58

"'Ferrari acknowledges McLaren's reiterated apology for the well-known events which occurred during the 2007 F1 Championship.

"In the best interests of Formula 1 and taking into account the formal closure in December 2007 of the FIA and FIA World Motor Sport Council proceedings against McLaren, it confirms that it has accepted to put an end to all outstanding controversies between the two teams.

'Ferrari will donate to charity the concluding payment received from McLaren"

If the victim asks for the charges to be dropped following a payment by the accused, then the Police would not proceed as this legal agreement would bar any further investigation resulting in a successful prosecution.

Stick to IT.

Actually, since you think that possession of other peoples documents & confidential information is fine and dandy, you best look for work elsewhere as I'm pretty sure your employers would be appalled.

22nd August 2008, 18:12

We have to deal with the facts and not opinions.

Then you provide with factual evidence that confirms that what a discredited proven liar is saying is actually true?

When you do, then we can discuss your claims validity.

Until then, it is utter hogwash from a desperate man.

ioan

22nd August 2008, 21:06

It was thoroughly proven that Mclaren had confidential Ferrari documents.

So, like I said, bang-to-rights guvnor.

Others, namely Renault, have not been dealt with dramatically differently. Mclaren were not punished originally.

It was only when evidence came to light, evidence later acknowledged by Martin Whitmarsh, that Mclaren had been less than open when given the opportunity to admit the depth to which their technical team had access to Ferrari information, that they recieved the fine.

Renault cooperated fully, to the extent that they opened their doors and computers to Mclaren to find Mackereth's info and the extent it had been assimilated.

Mclaren made no such offer either to the FIA or Ferrari.

In fact, they did the opposite. It was only when the FIA forced the issue and sent their investigative IT consultants into Mclaren, did the full depth of the assimilation of Ferrari technical information become clear.

This happened after Mclaren had been in front of two hearings. At neither did they take the opportunity for full disclosure.

To say that "others were treated dramatically differently" is therefore false.

Mclaren had two opportunities to be treated as the others, but their reluctance/refusal to do so cost them, as would passing up the opportunity to "plea bargain" by a defendant then found guilty in a court of law.

Only the most dyed-in-the-wool (or should that be denial-in-the-wool?) Mclaren fan and/or somebody with no grasp of the situation would fail to
A) Mention the dramatic differences that Mclarens actions took compared to others
B) Not see that Mclarens actions in refusing to cooperate openly is the dramatic difference.

Mclaren were given every opportunity to go to the FIA and fully disclose. Had they done so, then they would have been treated in the same way as Benetton in 1994, themselves in 1994 and Renault in 2007.

In effect, Mclaren brought the crap in on themselves.

Hit the nail right on it's head! :up:

BDunnell

22nd August 2008, 21:40

My head hurts from reading the same old views on this again and again.

mstillhere

23rd August 2008, 01:42

http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/formulaone/article.html?in_article_id=215277&in_page_id=58

"'Ferrari acknowledges McLaren's reiterated apology for the well-known events which occurred during the 2007 F1 Championship.

"In the best interests of Formula 1 and taking into account the formal closure in December 2007 of the FIA and FIA World Motor Sport Council proceedings against McLaren, it confirms that it has accepted to put an end to all outstanding controversies between the two teams.

'Ferrari will donate to charity the concluding payment received from McLaren"

If the victim asks for the charges to be dropped following a payment by the accused, then the Police would not proceed as this legal agreement would bar any further investigation resulting in a successful prosecution.

Stick to IT.

Actually, since you think that possession of other peoples documents & confidential information is fine and dandy, you best look for work elsewhere as I'm pretty sure your employers would be appalled.

I don't know why you are going crazy with this. The guys you are discussing with are just kidding you. The whole world knows that McLaren cheated, got caught TWICE, they ADMITTED IT and got disqualified and severely punished for it. That's all there is to it! End of the story! Don't waste any more time with this. They know you are right and if it would have been Ferrari in the same position the same guys that are splitting hair in trying to justify McLAren's unfair and dishonest practices would be at the UN pleading for an international embargo against Ferrari. Let's be HONEST, can we?
Just remember how nice it is to defend the truth than to defend a lie. AAAHHHH...it feels soooooooooo good!!! :D
Going back to the ORIGINAL thread, LH so far has proven jack in F1. Look instead how Timo Clock is doing driving a crappy car. Now, that's what I call skill. So, comparing LH to MS is JUST A DREAM. People like MS are born once every 1000 years. So, keep in comparing LH to Senna, MS, and to any other great champion that ever existed in F1. Keep in doing that, I find it so hilarious. :D

ShiftingGears

23rd August 2008, 08:19

Look instead how Timo Clock is doing driving a crappy car. Now, that's what I call skill.

Being beaten by his teammate for the majority of the season?

I have no idea how your phenomenal logic has anything to do with Hamilton or Schumacher. Maybe you should explain that to us.

mstillhere

23rd August 2008, 17:47

Being beaten by his teammate for the majority of the season?

I have no idea how your phenomenal logic has anything to do with Hamilton or Schumacher. Maybe you should explain that to us.

I can't help but realize that since you have nothing - except for winning a couple of races - in order to support the claim that LEWIS HAMILTON GREATNES SUPER CHAMPION GIFT FROM GOD best driver the whole world has ever seen you continue and some other people too in keeping in trying to CHANGE SUBJECT. Please refer to first page of this thread as a reminder. Thank you.
PS If there is someone phenomenal that would be MICHAEL SCHUMACHER. Period!!

ShiftingGears

24th August 2008, 01:31

I can't help but realize that since you have nothing - except for winning a couple of races - in order to support the claim that LEWIS HAMILTON GREATNES SUPER CHAMPION GIFT FROM GOD best driver the whole world has ever seen you continue and some other people too in keeping in trying to CHANGE SUBJECT.

No, that is what you did. You were the one who brought in Glock to this discussion. And I didn't claim that Lewis is the greatest ever. I think he has the talent to beat Schumacher's records, if he harnesses it. Is that hard to understand?

Please refer to first page of this thread as a reminder. Thank you.
PS If there is someone phenomenal that would be MICHAEL SCHUMACHER. Period!!

Who is denying that?

markabilly

24th August 2008, 12:59

Then you provide with factual evidence that confirms that what a discredited proven liar is saying is actually true?

When you do, then we can discuss your claims validity.

Until then, it is utter hogwash from a desperate man.

proven liar? who Ron? Sounds more like Max to me

I'm sorry. It's just when you posted...........I thought you meant 'legal' as in Statute Law.

Once again I apologise for pointing out that due to Mclaren's acceptance of technical information they knew to be obtained through illegal means, they were actually breaking criminal law.

But like you said, it had nothing to do with the FIA so is irrelevant*

*Irrelevant if you don't consider a criminal act to be shameful, dishonest and deserving punishment.

When it comes to Max, you certainly do not think it deserving of punishment.Even the old judge was forced to admit max's behavior to be technically illegal, and tried to find loopholes regarding the rest of it or just ignored the pimping down in Euston Theater.

Apply the same standards to Mac, that you apply to Max and give them back their money, points and all, Or continue to be a hypocrite.
Or punish them both with the same standards, Or continue to be a hypocrite.

:rolleyes:

Daniel

24th August 2008, 15:22

proven liar? who Ron? Sounds more like Max to me

When it comes to Max, you certainly do not think it deserving of punishment.Even the old judge was forced to admit max's behavior to be technically illegal, and tried to find loopholes regarding the rest of it or just ignored the pimping down in Euston Theater.

Apply the same standards to Mac, that you apply to Max and give them back their money, points and all, Or continue to be a hypocrite.
Or punish them both with the same standards, Or continue to be a hypocrite.

:rolleyes:
I'll take option C. Give me lots of money and make me filthy rich mein herr!

markabilly

24th August 2008, 18:34

I'll take option C. Give me lots of money and make me filthy rich mein herr!

I think Ronald and max both already got lots of money. As for you, mein herr, you been naughty, and you get nothing, nothing and nothing

racecraze

25th August 2008, 05:45

Its their own opinion, we can just watch and comment them and nothing more than that.

PolePosition_1

26th August 2008, 10:08

No, the fine was justified in that Mclaren had not taken the opportunity to fully investigate themselves and be open & honest.

Mclaren denied any involvement by any of its employees at the original July hearing.

They later, after the release of the FIA report in December, had to apologise for that, thereby acknowledging their refusal to fully cooperate.

Erm, you say they'd have got off lightly like Benetton in 1994.

Did they not deny they had LC, when found they did, say it couldn't be switched on, when found it could, say they didn't realise.

And on top of that fined $100,000 for not co-operating by making them wait 4 months!

All due respect, thats not opening your doors.

Tbh I don't know the inside situation of McLaren of summer last year, but from what I have seen and read, I believe the top people of McLaren genuinely didn't realise the extent to which the information was in McLaren at time of original hearing.

Ron Dennis only found out about the extent at Hungary in his bust up with Alonso, and phoned Max to let him know as soon as he found out.

Max Mosely himself has said he believes Ron Dennis has told what he believed to be the truth throughout the spygate scandal.

They apologised for being wrong, I don't think you will ever find they admitted to bare face lying about it.

PolePosition_1

26th August 2008, 10:12

PolePosition_1

26th August 2008, 10:14

I don't know why you are going crazy with this. The guys you are discussing with are just kidding you. The whole world knows that McLaren cheated, got caught TWICE, they ADMITTED IT and got disqualified and severely punished for it. That's all there is to it! End of the story! Don't waste any more time with this. They know you are right and if it would have been Ferrari in the same position the same guys that are splitting hair in trying to justify McLAren's unfair and dishonest practices would be at the UN pleading for an international embargo against Ferrari. Let's be HONEST, can we?
Just remember how nice it is to defend the truth than to defend a lie. AAAHHHH...it feels soooooooooo good!!! :D
Going back to the ORIGINAL thread, LH so far has proven jack in F1. Look instead how Timo Clock is doing driving a crappy car. Now, that's what I call skill. So, comparing LH to MS is JUST A DREAM. People like MS are born once every 1000 years. So, keep in comparing LH to Senna, MS, and to any other great champion that ever existed in F1. Keep in doing that, I find it so hilarious. :D

Its nice to see you have someone who is so unbiased backing you up tamburello.

nigelred5

27th August 2008, 01:55

PolePosition_1

27th August 2008, 08:23

Mclaren didn't have to use a single element of the ferrari design to benefit. It provided them with a very important baseline with which they could develop their car from and compare to without ever hitting a track.

Fair enoguh, in that case its the same with Renault who escaped punishment.

I'm not saying McLaren is innocent, just saying the FIA lack consistancy in their punishments, which McLaren having a tendency to lose out with this. And Ferrari benefitting.

ioan

27th August 2008, 10:59

Fair enoguh, in that case its the same with Renault who escaped punishment.

You can't compare Rnault having the drawing for 3 systems (mainly about cooling systems) from McLaren, with McLaren having the whole technical documentation about the F2007.

Oh wait, sure you can, afterall people don't stop comparing apples and oranges around here.

I'm not saying McLaren is innocent, just saying the FIA lack consistancy in their punishments, which McLaren having a tendency to lose out with this. And Ferrari benefitting.

You'll have to take a close look at how the two cases evolved, something I'm sure you didn't. We'll talk after that, hopefully without comparing apples and bananas, again. :rolleyes:

PolePosition_1

27th August 2008, 11:29

You can't compare Rnault having the drawing for 3 systems (mainly about cooling systems) from McLaren, with McLaren having the whole technical documentation about the F2007.

Oh wait, sure you can, afterall people don't stop comparing apples and oranges around here.

You'll have to take a close look at how the two cases evolved, something I'm sure you didn't. We'll talk after that, hopefully without comparing apples and bananas, again. :rolleyes:

Ioan, you seem to be under a constant frame of mind that your opinion is right, and everyone elses is wrong, as if its a fact. Its not, its your opinion. Its subjective.

Firstly, Renault were not punished because they didn't use them.

McLaren were at first not punished because they didn't prove they used them. so I don't think the quantity of the data had much bearing on the verdict, considering they handed same punishment to both on basis they didn't use it.

And secondly, just because I've got a different opinion to yourself, does not mean I haven't looked into this.

I've read and written what feels like essays with regards to spygate. I feel confident in saying I'm fully educated and up to speed with the topic, and how it evolved and changed.

Its just I've got a different opinion to you thats all :) .

ioan

27th August 2008, 12:52

Ioan, you seem to be under a constant frame of mind that your opinion is right, and everyone elses is wrong, as if its a fact. Its not, its your opinion. Its subjective.

That's my problem not yours. I don't crticize your frame of mind, I only answer your posts.

Don't like it? Your problem.

Knock-on

27th August 2008, 13:02

You can't compare Rnault having the drawing for 3 systems (mainly about cooling systems) from McLaren, with McLaren having the whole technical documentation about the F2007.

Oh wait, sure you can, afterall people don't stop comparing apples and oranges around here.

You'll have to take a close look at how the two cases evolved, something I'm sure you didn't. We'll talk after that, hopefully without comparing apples and bananas, again. :rolleyes:

Actually you are completely wrong again.

There were 4 (not 3) documents that were supposedly looked at. There were more found.

One of the documents was the complete schematic overview of the McLaren which was so sensitive that it was impossible to be printed off and had to be downloaded to a screen dump and then emailed out of McLarens HQ to Phil's private email account before being emailed to Renault.

Go back and read the transcript from the FIA that was posted by me.

Knock-on

27th August 2008, 13:06

Ioan, you seem to be under a constant frame of mind that your opinion is right, and everyone elses is wrong, as if its a fact. Its not, its your opinion. Its subjective.

Firstly, Renault were not punished because they didn't use them.

McLaren were at first not punished because they didn't prove they used them. so I don't think the quantity of the data had much bearing on the verdict, considering they handed same punishment to both on basis they didn't use it.

And secondly, just because I've got a different opinion to yourself, does not mean I haven't looked into this.

I've read and written what feels like essays with regards to spygate. I feel confident in saying I'm fully educated and up to speed with the topic, and how it evolved and changed.

Its just I've got a different opinion to you thats all :) .

Actually, Renault were not punished because although there was systermatic evidence that they had access to the Fuel cell design, full McLaren schematic including vital weight distribution data particulaly regarding engine placement etc, the FIA accepted Renaults statement that the data wasn't included on their car and the fact that after McLaren found out that Renault had the plans for the previous year, Renault said "It's a fair cop Guv".

PolePosition_1

27th August 2008, 13:11

Actually, Renault were not punished because although there was systermatic evidence that they had access to the Fuel cell design, full McLaren schematic including vital weight distribution data particulaly regarding engine placement etc, the FIA accepted Renaults statement that the data wasn't included on their car and the fact that after McLaren found out that Renault had the plans for the previous year, Renault said "It's a fair cop Guv".

Yeah - thats what I said isn't it? They didn't punish Renault because they didn't use it on their cars.

PolePosition_1

27th August 2008, 13:23

That's my problem not yours. I don't crticize your frame of mind, I only answer your posts.

Don't like it? Your problem.

Well, suppose its how you look at it. I like to keep an open mind and listen to other peoples view, to broaden my knowledge base and gain new perspectives (even if I disagree with them).

If you've got an approach of your right everyone else is wrong and not willing to take into account other opinions your more entitled to do so :) . But it is a slightly ignorant attitude to take. But if thats how you like to be and it doesn't bother then yes its just my problem :) .

I found it quite telling how you replied to my post which broke your argument apart, and you didn't even pick up on it, just decided to throw an insult.

Can I ask you a question? In your mind, can you name me a few things which Michael Schumacher have even done which is bad?

27th August 2008, 15:42

proven liar? who Ron? Sounds more like Max to me

Who are you refering to? Ron Dennis?

Actually I was referring to Stepney, who has already proven with his own mouth that he was lying.

27th August 2008, 15:47

When it comes to Max, you certainly do not think it deserving of punishment.Even the old judge was forced to admit max's behavior to be technically illegal, and tried to find loopholes regarding the rest of it or just ignored the pimping down in Euston Theater.

Apply the same standards to Mac, that you apply to Max and give them back their money, points and all, Or continue to be a hypocrite.
Or punish them both with the same standards, Or continue to be a hypocrite.

:rolleyes:

Except Max wasn't in court for anything to do with the Euston theatre. He has not been investigated for any illegal activity. He was in court in order to clear his name of wrongful & damaging claims made about him.

Mclaren were investigated by the Italian magistrates (The case was dropped following payment made by Mclaren to Ferrari), but so far Mclaren have never attempted to clear their name.

27th August 2008, 15:59

Erm, you say they'd have got off lightly like Benetton in 1994.

Did they not deny they had LC, when found they did, say it couldn't be switched on, when found it could, say they didn't realise.

And on top of that fined $100,000 for not co-operating by making them wait 4 months!

All due respect, thats not opening your doors.

No it wasn't, but if you actually knew more about the case you would know that in 1994 both Benetton & Mclaren claimed that the Source Codes were subject to non-disclosure agreements with their partners.

"Having received nothing from the other two teams, a fax was sent on 9th May (Appendix 2) asking for urgent action.

An alternative suggestion was received from Benetton Formula Ltd. In this letter dated 10th May (Appendix 3), they stated the source codes could not be made available for commercial reasons.

In a fax to Benetton Formula dated 15th May (Appendix 4), we accepted this proposal, on the condition that Article 2.6 of the Technical Regulations was satisfied.

On 27th May we received a detailed program for the demonstration at Cosworth Engineering. (Appendix 5)

The tests which were scheduled to take place on 28th June were canceled, by Benetton, after some discussion between Ford and themselves concerning non-disclosure agreements

By a fax dated 28th June, we again requested the tests take place as a matter of urgency. (Appendix 6)

The demonstration and tests took place on 6th July. We received a report from LDRA on 11th July (Appendix 7) which left a number of unanswered questions which we were advised could only be addressed by close examination of the source code.

In a letter to Benetton dated 13th July (Appendix 8) we made it clear the demonstration had been unsatisfactory and we required the source code for the software.

Following another exchange of letters on the 13th and 14th July (Appendices 9 and 10) a meeting was set up at the Benetton factory on 19th July, an agenda for which was received on 18th July (Appendix 11) which gave our advisors full access to all the source code, but only on Benetton's premises and subject to the instructions set out in Appendix 11"

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=655&FS=F1

Given that Benetton immediately replied, as in the next day, to the first request of the FIA with an explanation of the reasons for non-disclosure, and also arranged a visit by FIA officials to Benetton to study the program, then they certainly did not treat the FIA with the contempt that Mclaren upper-management did last year.

Not once did the Mclaren management offer any proposals for an investigation.

PolePosition_1

27th August 2008, 16:37

Except Max wasn't in court for anything to do with the Euston theatre. He has not been investigated for any illegal activity. He was in court in order to clear his name of wrongful & damaging claims made about him.

Mclaren were investigated by the Italian magistrates (The case was dropped following payment made by Mclaren to Ferrari), but so far Mclaren have never attempted to clear their name.

Well, they wouldn't stand a chance, they were caught red handed with all the documents. Guilty as charged.

Knock-on

27th August 2008, 16:46

Not once did the Mclaren management offer any proposals for an investigation.

Sorry Tamb but 100% wrong chap.

"In order to address some of the speculation McLaren has invited the FIA to conduct a full review of its cars to satisfy itself that the team has not benefited from any intellectual property of another competitor." Since the revelation of Coughlan's involvement in the affair, McLaren provided a full set of drawings and development documents to the FIA, detailing all updates made to the team's chassis since the incident occurred at the end of April.

Wiki article with external references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Formula_One_espionage_controversy

Chaparral66

28th August 2008, 05:20

Pardon me, I'm getting to this late, but we're still talking about Hamilton vs. Schumacher, right?

PolePosition_1

28th August 2008, 08:48

No it wasn't, but if you actually knew more about the case you would know that in 1994 both Benetton & Mclaren claimed that the Source Codes were subject to non-disclosure agreements with their partners.

"Having received nothing from the other two teams, a fax was sent on 9th May (Appendix 2) asking for urgent action.

An alternative suggestion was received from Benetton Formula Ltd. In this letter dated 10th May (Appendix 3), they stated the source codes could not be made available for commercial reasons.

In a fax to Benetton Formula dated 15th May (Appendix 4), we accepted this proposal, on the condition that Article 2.6 of the Technical Regulations was satisfied.

On 27th May we received a detailed program for the demonstration at Cosworth Engineering. (Appendix 5)

The tests which were scheduled to take place on 28th June were canceled, by Benetton, after some discussion between Ford and themselves concerning non-disclosure agreements

By a fax dated 28th June, we again requested the tests take place as a matter of urgency. (Appendix 6)

The demonstration and tests took place on 6th July. We received a report from LDRA on 11th July (Appendix 7) which left a number of unanswered questions which we were advised could only be addressed by close examination of the source code.

In a letter to Benetton dated 13th July (Appendix 8) we made it clear the demonstration had been unsatisfactory and we required the source code for the software.

Following another exchange of letters on the 13th and 14th July (Appendices 9 and 10) a meeting was set up at the Benetton factory on 19th July, an agenda for which was received on 18th July (Appendix 11) which gave our advisors full access to all the source code, but only on Benetton's premises and subject to the instructions set out in Appendix 11"

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=655&FS=F1

Given that Benetton immediately replied, as in the next day, to the first request of the FIA with an explanation of the reasons for non-disclosure, and also arranged a visit by FIA officials to Benetton to study the program, then they certainly did not treat the FIA with the contempt that Mclaren upper-management did last year.

Not once did the Mclaren management offer any proposals for an investigation.

Well, all due respect, though I don’t think the FIA make perfect decisions, but if Benetton and McLaren couldn’t by legal agreements they wouldn’t have fined them $100,000. It would be totally unreasonable and against some rules to expect teams to break the law to comply with the FIA.

Albeit there I some truth in their explanation, I highly doubt the FIA would have fined them that much if they legally couldn’t provide them with it.

Fact the FIA found the demonstration “unsatisfactory” would imply to me they did not comply 100% well. So your argument they opened their doors for them, compared to McLaren for spy gate, just isn’t the case. And at end of day, though they were in constant correspondence with the FIA, it still took them over 3 months to provide a demonstration. Being in correspondence ‘as in the next day’ does not show they co-operated fully with the FIA. I’m sure McLaren could state they were in constant correspondence with the FIA.

And regarding McLaren not once making a proposal, please refer to Knock On, for their openness and co-operation with regards to investigating their 2008 car.

28th August 2008, 17:14

And regarding McLaren not once making a proposal, please refer to Knock On, for their openness and co-operation with regards to investigating their 2008 car.

That was for the 2008 car, long after they had been found guilty of breaching the sporting code for the actions of 2007.

When the news first broke that Mclaren had recieved info about the 2007 Ferrari, they did not open their doors to either the FIA or offer Ferrari the opportunity to send in computer specialists as Renault did for Mclaren

With regards to the 1994 Benetton case, the FIA did accept that due to NDA's with the Ford Motor company, Benetton were not in a position to hand the required Source Codes over.

Benetton, like Mclaren at the same time, wanted assurances that the highly-sensitive information, that was not actually theirs to hand out, would be subject to strict security controls.

Once the legal eagles were satisfied, the Source codes were handed over.

The "other team" referred to at the time by the FIA, Ferrari, did not have NDA's simply because they, unlike the mere Garagista's of Benetton & Mclaren, were sole suppliers to themselves, hence their immediate hand over of the requested Source codes.

Yes, both Benetton & Mclaren were fined $100,000. That was more to prevent any team in the future from using the NDA's as a delaying tactic.

There was, however, no actual evidence that either Benetton or Mclaren used the NDA's as a delaying tactic. If you have it, please supply it. The FIA considered the delay to be "unacceptable" but did not themselves refer to this delay as a "delaying tactic".

Since two teams were in the same position, it is only fair to say that the Non-Disclosure of information, even to the governing body, was not a one-off nor was it unique to one team.

If I recall correctly, when the current Concord Agreement was signed in 1997, the FIA included within it that NDA's between teams and suppliers would not and could not be used to prevent the FIA from having immediate access to information they required.

None of which changes the fact that Mclaren did not take the opportunity to immediately cooperate to the same extent as did Renault in 2007.

28th August 2008, 17:22

Fact the FIA found the demonstration “unsatisfactory” would imply to me they did not comply 100% well. So your argument they opened their doors for them, compared to McLaren for spy gate, just isn’t the case.

The demonstration was considered unsatisfactory.....but there is no doubt that there was a demonstration.

The results of the demonstration do not alter the fact that a demonstration took place, which hardly supports your claim that Benetton did not open their doors.

28th August 2008, 17:55

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Formula_One_espionage_controversy

And regarding McLaren not once making a proposal, please refer to Knock On, for their openness and co-operation with regards to investigating their 2008 car.

That was for the 2008 car, long after they had been found guilty of breaching the sporting code for the actions of 2007.

When the news first broke that Mclaren had recieved info about the 2007 Ferrari, they did not open their doors to either the FIA or offer Ferrari the opportunity to send in computer specialists as Renault did for Mclaren

Mea Culpa...I was responding to Poles post, not having read Knock-On's.

However, inviting the FIA to look at the designs of it's 2007 car is still not the same as throwing open your computer system to a rival competitor.

The two examples merely show just how pathetic Mclaren's offer actually was.

As I said before, the fine was truly deserved.

Personally speaking I'd have had the feckers horse-whipped and banished from F1 for eternity, so in some ways it could be considered that they got off lightly.

PolePosition_1

29th August 2008, 09:01

That was for the 2008 car, long after they had been found guilty of breaching the sporting code for the actions of 2007.

When the news first broke that Mclaren had recieved info about the 2007 Ferrari, they did not open their doors to either the FIA or offer Ferrari the opportunity to send in computer specialists as Renault did for Mclaren

With regards to the 1994 Benetton case, the FIA did accept that due to NDA's with the Ford Motor company, Benetton were not in a position to hand the required Source Codes over.

Benetton, like Mclaren at the same time, wanted assurances that the highly-sensitive information, that was not actually theirs to hand out, would be subject to strict security controls.

Once the legal eagles were satisfied, the Source codes were handed over.

The "other team" referred to at the time by the FIA, Ferrari, did not have NDA's simply because they, unlike the mere Garagista's of Benetton & Mclaren, were sole suppliers to themselves, hence their immediate hand over of the requested Source codes.

Yes, both Benetton & Mclaren were fined $100,000. That was more to prevent any team in the future from using the NDA's as a delaying tactic.

There was, however, no actual evidence that either Benetton or Mclaren used the NDA's as a delaying tactic. If you have it, please supply it. The FIA considered the delay to be "unacceptable" but did not themselves refer to this delay as a "delaying tactic".

Since two teams were in the same position, it is only fair to say that the Non-Disclosure of information, even to the governing body, was not a one-off nor was it unique to one team.

If I recall correctly, when the current Concord Agreement was signed in 1997, the FIA included within it that NDA's between teams and suppliers would not and could not be used to prevent the FIA from having immediate access to information they required.

None of which changes the fact that Mclaren did not take the opportunity to immediately cooperate to the same extent as did Renault in 2007.

There is no point in asking for proof. There isn't any. Its all based on opinions.

I'm just going by the fact that the FIA dished out $100,000 penalty for the delay. It strongly implies the 4 month wait was not needed. Which means they didn't co-operate.

Do you have proof the punishment was meant purely to discourage other teams to not use that excuse as a delay tactic?

PolePosition_1

29th August 2008, 09:05

The demonstration was considered unsatisfactory.....but there is no doubt that there was a demonstration.

The results of the demonstration do not alter the fact that a demonstration took place, which hardly supports your claim that Benetton did not open their doors.

Your doing it again, getting all excited and end up reading what you want. I've never stated they never opened their doors. I'm just saying you can't say Benetton were as co-operative in 1994 as Renault were recently.

Because they made them wait 4 months, and sure provided a demonstration, but it was totally unsatifactory. So thats not co-operating.

Co-operating fully would be providing a satisfactory demonstration in my eyes.

PolePosition_1

29th August 2008, 09:06

Personally speaking I'd have had the feckers horse-whipped and banished from F1 for eternity, so in some ways it could be considered that they got off lightly.

That frame of mind reassures me that your unbiased in your opinion.... :)

Knock-on

29th August 2008, 09:38

Mea Culpa...I was responding to Poles post, not having read Knock-On's.

However, inviting the FIA to look at the designs of it's 2007 car is still not the same as throwing open your computer system to a rival competitor.

The two examples merely show just how pathetic Mclaren's offer actually was.

As I said before, the fine was truly deserved.

Personally speaking I'd have had the feckers horse-whipped and banished from F1 for eternity, so in some ways it could be considered that they got off lightly.

Can't say I agree,

McLaren offered full documentation of last years and this years car including a documented list of alterations since MC was given the file in March / April.

This full and open access to the FIA was done prior to the first FIA hearing in which McLaren were found guilty of a technical breach if 151c but not a material violation as they had not used the information.

29th August 2008, 16:12

Your doing it again, getting all excited and end up reading what you want. I've never stated they never opened their doors. I'm just saying you can't say Benetton were as co-operative in 1994 as Renault were recently.

I didn't say that Benetton cooperated in 1994 to the same extent as Renault did in 2007.

Perhaps you should stop putting words into my mouth before criticising me for not "reading" properly.

My point was that Benetton in 1994 cooperated a damn sight more than Mclaren did in 2007.

Hence the difference in monetary penalties.

29th August 2008, 16:14

That frame of mind reassures me that your unbiased in your opinion.... :)

Whereas yours is unblemished, virtous and free from fault?

I acknowledge my bias, and you can take it or leave it when it comes to my opinion.

Knock-on

29th August 2008, 16:44

PolePosition_1

30th August 2008, 14:15

I didn't say that Benetton cooperated in 1994 to the same extent as Renault did in 2007.

Perhaps you should stop putting words into my mouth before criticising me for not "reading" properly.

My point was that Benetton in 1994 cooperated a damn sight more than Mclaren did in 2007.

Hence the difference in monetary penalties.

You said and I quote:

Mclaren were given every opportunity to go to the FIA and fully disclose. Had they done so, then they would have been treated in the same way as Benetton in 1994, themselves in 1994 and Renault in 2007.

In effect, Mclaren brought the crap in on themselves.

I'm sorry, but that to me and I can ony assume to most English speaking peope implies that Benetton and Renault in 94 and 07 weren't punished because they co-operated fully, where as McLaren did not.

And you've totally failed in giving a reasonable explanation as to why you think Benetton co-operated so much more? You've given an explanation which doesn't stand, in saying the FIA would expect the teams to break the law to comply with them. And that the $100k fine was to discourage other teams using that as a delay tactic, despite no proof whatsoever.

So basically we have Benetton who co-operated fully in your eyes in 1994, by making the FIA wait over 3 months for a demonstation, that was deemed totally unsatifactory, made them wait another month for a proper demonstration, where Benetton said they didn't have LC, found they had it, Benetton said it could not be switched on, found it could be, Benetton said it could only be switched on by a computer, found it could be switched on from within the car. And on top of that a $100k fine for not co-operating.

Now that paragraph above, is all facts. Its not my opinion, its what actually happened. You've explained with your opinion why these things happened, but thats just what they are, your opinions, your entitled to them.

But I'm going to base mine on the facts above. And from that, I'm going to say Benetton did not fully co-operate with the FIA as you seemed to orginally state, which has now changed to 'they co-operated more than McLaren did'.

PolePosition_1

30th August 2008, 14:19

Whereas yours is unblemished, virtous and free from fault?

I acknowledge my bias, and you can take it or leave it when it comes to my opinion.

I think I manage to keep an open and unbiased mind yes.

There are instances where I defend Ferrari, instances where I defend McLaren, I have a favourite driver, but I acknowledge his faults. I just try to keep an open mind. And I think I'm unbiased in my opinions :)

ioan

30th August 2008, 14:39

PolePosition_1

30th August 2008, 15:14

In fact Benetton and later Renault were open to the FIA while they were not into hiding the evidence, something we can't say about McLaren.
What's so difficult to understand? :confused:

As far as I'm away Renault were open from the very beginning of their scandal.

And Mclaren were open and inviting to the FIA with regards to inspection of their 2007 car (post Hungary when Dennis found out the extent) and for the design of their 2008 car.

While with Benetton in 1994 were pressured at each turn into co-operation.

I don't particularly understand how you read my posts showing Benetton were not co-operating and reply with 'Benetton were not hiding evidence'.

When it was proven a couple of times they did exactly that, as stated in my post which you quoted. :confused:

ioan

30th August 2008, 17:09

As far as I'm away Renault were open from the very beginning of their scandal.

And Mclaren were open and inviting to the FIA with regards to inspection of their 2007 car (post Hungary when Dennis found out the extent) and for the design of their 2008 car.

Post Hungary was late, too late, after they refused it for 2 months.
They first lied and refused to accept any blame, based on their "internal investigation". What a joke.

PolePosition_1

30th August 2008, 17:30

Post Hungary was late, too late, after they refused it for 2 months.
They first lied and refused to accept any blame, based on their "internal investigation". What a joke.

Ron Dennis was top boss, he simply wasn't aware of how deep it had gone into McLaren.

Thats poor management, no one can deny that. And a question should be asked regarding that.

But you can't expect someone to authorise co-operation with something he has no clue is going on. All that can be said is that as soon as Ron found out, he told Max Mosely the full story.

And Max made a statement at the Belgium GP stating that he believed Ron to have told what he believed to be the truth at the time from start to finish.

Whats your grounds for believing Benetton fully co-operated in 1994?

ioan

30th August 2008, 20:34

Ron Dennis was top boss, he simply wasn't aware of how deep it had gone into McLaren.

Thats poor management, no one can deny that. And a question should be asked regarding that.

You're right, he should have left F1 on the very moment it was clear that he wasn't in control of his team. But we can't expect someone with his low ethics to do that, can we?!

But you can't expect someone to authorise co-operation with something he has no clue is going on.

Come on man, if you are accused by the police there is no such thing that you will not authorize co-operation with them. You either do it or you go to jail while you wait for your trial.

In this case the FIA was the police and McLaren the offender, just in case anyone might have been wondering.

mstillhere

31st August 2008, 00:29

PolePosition_1

31st August 2008, 01:15

You're right, he should have left F1 on the very moment it was clear that he wasn't in control of his team. But we can't expect someone with his low ethics to do that, can we?!

Come on man, if you are accused by the police there is no such thing that you will not authorize co-operation with them. You either do it or you go to jail while you wait for your trial.

In this case the FIA was the police and McLaren the offender, just in case anyone might have been wondering.

Erm, I never said he should have quit his job lol, all in all he has and is doing a good job. Why do you claim he has low ethics?

I'm not saying Dennis refused to co-operate with the FIA. I'm simply saying he didn't think McLaren had done much wrong. But as soon as he knew he owned up and told Max everything and co-operated fully.

PolePosition_1

31st August 2008, 01:26

Since it seems to everybody forgot the title of thid thread let me remind you. The title is HAmilton V MS. I would like to remind all the Hamilton's fan that LH will be better ONLY when he'll have won 8 (EIGHT) world championships. At 7 (SEVEN) he would be equal less than that, for example 6, would make him worse. It's simple, it is not? Wow!!!!...Who would have thouth...... :)

Well, I agree that Schumacher is the more successful driver out of him and Lewis Hamilton.

But statistics don't really give a true reflection of how good someone is.

I'm a Damon Hill fan, this gentleman won 20% of his race starts....Schumacher won 30%. Jim Clark won 35%! Piquet Snr only won 10% of his races.

I'm not suggest Damon Hill was better than Piquet, but it shows statistics aren't everything.

We've got to look at our opinions, so basically we're never going to agree.

To me, if MS came back to F1 right now in same team as Lewis, I think Lewis would be the faster driver, I think MS was an amazing driver in 2006, but he was no longer at his peak, so I don't think he'd be able to beat Hamilton now.

Who is better, Schumacher at his peak or Hamilton at his peak? We simply don't know yet because Hamilton hasn't peaked yet.

All I can say is that I predict yes from his current form, he's matching MS on races won in proportion, in an era where at any race 4-6 drivers can challenge for a win.

Schumacher won 50% of his GP between 2001 - 2004 when there was no competition (bar 2003).

mstillhere

31st August 2008, 02:53

Well, I agree that Schumacher is the more successful driver out of him and Lewis Hamilton.

But statistics don't really give a true reflection of how good someone is.

I'm a Damon Hill fan, this gentleman won 20% of his race starts....Schumacher won 30%. Jim Clark won 35%! Piquet Snr only won 10% of his races.

I'm not suggest Damon Hill was better than Piquet, but it shows statistics aren't everything.

We've got to look at our opinions, so basically we're never going to agree.

To me, if MS came back to F1 right now in same team as Lewis, I think Lewis would be the faster driver, I think MS was an amazing driver in 2006, but he was no longer at his peak, so I don't think he'd be able to beat Hamilton now.

Who is better, Schumacher at his peak or Hamilton at his peak? We simply don't know yet because Hamilton hasn't peaked yet.

All I can say is that I predict yes from his current form, he's matching MS on races won in proportion, in an era where at any race 4-6 drivers can challenge for a win.

Schumacher won 50% of his GP between 2001 - 2004 when there was no competition (bar 2003).

Statistics. I love them. However, a record SEVEN world champioships in your pocket it has to carry more weight than statistics. Especially when Shumi's competion has not even won one - to date of course. So, embrace yourselves because it would take LH's fans 8 years from now - that is if Lewis wins this year of course - before they can objectively say that Lewis is better than Shumi. And let's hope, for Hamilton's sake, that in the meantime we don't run out of oil. Can you imagine? They all be driving electric cars or hybrids. That would be a shame :)

ShiftingGears

31st August 2008, 03:28

Statistics. I love them. However, a record SEVEN world champioships in your pocket it has to carry more weight than statistics.

7 World Championships are a statistic.

31st August 2008, 10:54

You said and I quote:

Mclaren were given every opportunity to go to the FIA and fully disclose. Had they done so, then they would have been treated in the same way as Benetton in 1994, themselves in 1994 and Renault in 2007.

In effect, Mclaren brought the crap in on themselves.

I'm sorry, but that to me and I can ony assume to most English speaking peope implies that Benetton and Renault in 94 and 07 weren't punished because they co-operated fully, where as McLaren did not.

So I didn't say that Benetton co-operated to the same extent as Renault did.

You assumed that's what I meant. There is a big difference between you assuming that's what I meant and me actually saying it.

In future discussions, please stick to what I actually say, not what you assume.

As stated before, Benetton were, in 1994, just like Mclaren in 1994, unable to co-operate to the same extent as Renault in 2007 due to various NDA's both teams had with their suppliers.

As I said in another post, such delays would be impossible now due to the current Concord Agreement. In 1994, this was not the case.

However, neither Benetton in 1994 or Mclaren in 1994 offered to the FIA the results of a, later self-admitted, poorly conducted investigation in to their own affairs as did Mclaren in 2007.

Both Benetton & Mclaren in 1994 did not treat the concerns of the governing body and a fellow competitor with the casual disregard Mclaren did in 2007.

Benetton, whose management is the same personnel as Renault's is today, learnt from 1994 and improved their co-operation to such an extent that the FIA were happy with the co-operation.

Mclaren, whose management is the same personnel as it was in 1994, went in the other direction.

BDunnell

31st August 2008, 10:56

My head hurts again from reading all this.

31st August 2008, 10:57

But I'm going to base mine on the facts above. And from that, I'm going to say Benetton did not fully co-operate with the FIA as you seemed to orginally state, which has now changed to 'they co-operated more than McLaren did'.

Do not misquote me again.

Please show where I said that Benetton co-operated fully with the FIA. Show me that, not your assumption of what I said.

And once you've done that, apologise.

PolePosition_1

31st August 2008, 11:27

So I didn't say that Benetton co-operated to the same extent as Renault did.

You assumed that's what I meant. There is a big difference between you assuming that's what I meant and me actually saying it.

In future discussions, please stick to what I actually say, not what you assume.

As stated before, Benetton were, in 1994, just like Mclaren in 1994, unable to co-operate to the same extent as Renault in 2007 due to various NDA's both teams had with their suppliers.

As I said in another post, such delays would be impossible now due to the current Concord Agreement. In 1994, this was not the case.

However, neither Benetton in 1994 or Mclaren in 1994 offered to the FIA the results of a, later self-admitted, poorly conducted investigation in to their own affairs as did Mclaren in 2007.

Both Benetton & Mclaren in 1994 did not treat the concerns of the governing body and a fellow competitor with the casual disregard Mclaren did in 2007.

Benetton, whose management is the same personnel as Renault's is today, learnt from 1994 and improved their co-operation to such an extent that the FIA were happy with the co-operation.

Mclaren, whose management is the same personnel as it was in 1994, went in the other direction.

One second Tamb, I feel as if your back tracking now. Originally, you stated that if Mclaren co-operated in 2007, they would have escaped punished, in same way Benetton did in 1994 and Renault in 2007.

Now - just we get this clear, as I'm either misreading your posts or your not making yourself clear - do you believe Benetton's co-operation with the FIA meant they didn't recieve any punishment in 1994?

31st August 2008, 11:34

Simply find were I specifically said that Benetton co-operated to the same extent as Renault.

And then apologize.

mstillhere

31st August 2008, 15:25

7 World Championships are a statistic.

Is that right!?! I think and know that's a FACT!!!

Dave B

31st August 2008, 16:07

Since it seems to everybody forgot the title of thid thread let me remind you. The title is HAmilton V MS. I would like to remind all the Hamilton's fan that LH will be better ONLY when he'll have won 8 (EIGHT) world championships. At 7 (SEVEN) he would be equal less than that, for example 6, would make him worse. It's simple, it is not? Wow!!!!...Who would have thouth...... :)
If it were that simple we'd never have any of the Senna v Prost, Fangio v Schumacher, Hill v Villeneuve debates which have been raging for as long as two Frenchmen had the brilliant idea of seeing whose car was the faster.

Yes Schumacher is statistically the most successful F1 driver by almost any measure, but "best"? That word is open to so much interpretation.

What I do agree with is that it's far too early to comment on Hamilton's F1 legacy. He may yet go on the be the greatest champion the sport has ever know; he may go down in history as a "nearly man" who never quite managed to get his hands on the ultimate prize.

If anybody claims to know for sure, would they please PM me next week's lottery numbers while they're at it? :p

mstillhere

31st August 2008, 18:58

If it were that simple we'd never have any of the Senna v Prost, Fangio v Schumacher, Hill v Villeneuve debates which have been raging for as long as two Frenchmen had the brilliant idea of seeing whose car was the faster.

I am truly hoping that in the back of your head your are not trying to compare LH to any of those champions.

Yes Schumacher is statistically the most successful F1 driver by almost any measure.

Statistically? I hope you guys are aware what statistics are. You guys keep in bringing this up -and understandibly so, since you got nothing else to use in support of your argument, really. I hope we all agree when we say that statistics don't state a fact (RIGHT?) and because of that it's not considered a science. Therefore, SEVEN worldchampioships WON by MS is a fact which goes ABSOLUTELY beyond statistics.

mstillhere

31st August 2008, 18:59

If it were that simple we'd never have any of the Senna v Prost, Fangio v Schumacher, Hill v Villeneuve debates which have been raging for as long as two Frenchmen had the brilliant idea of seeing whose car was the faster.

I am truly hoping that in the back of your head your are not trying to compare LH to any of those champions.

Yes Schumacher is statistically the most successful F1 driver by almost any measure.

Statistically? I hope you guys know what statistics are. You guys keep in bringing this up -and understandibly so, since you got nothing else to use in support of your argument, really. I hope we all agree when we say that statistics don't state a fact (RIGHT?) and because of that it's not considered a science. Therefore, SEVEN worldchampioships WON by MS is a fact which goes ABSOLUTELY beyond statistics.

Dave B

31st August 2008, 19:14

I am truly hoping that in the back of your head your are not trying to compare LH to any of those champions.
Oh for goodness sake, did you even read the part of my post where I said it is impossible to speculate on how good - or not - Lewis may ultimately go on to become?

Statistically? I hope you guys are aware what statistics are. You guys keep in bringing this up -and understandibly so, since you got nothing else to use in support of your argument, really. I hope we all agree when we say that statistics don't state a fact (RIGHT?) and because of that it's not considered a science. Therefore, SEVEN worldchampioships WON by MS is a fact which goes ABSOLUTELY beyond statistics.
None of which I disagreed with. MS is the most successful driver in F1 - fact. Nobody's denying this. All I'm saying is that success is not the only measure of talent. A significant one, yes. But not the only one.

Let me ask you a question. Stewart won 3 championships, Prost won 4. Who is the better driver? Now you may well say Prost, but others will say Stewart. Neither is right or wrong, both camps will have their reasons for their choice. But you cannot simply say that as the Frenchman won one more championship that automatically makes him a "better" driver.

MrJan

31st August 2008, 21:24

Statistics. I love them. However, a record SEVEN world champioships in your pocket it has to carry more weight than statistics. Especially when Shumi's competion has not even won one - to date of course. So, embrace yourselves because it would take LH's fans 8 years from now - that is if Lewis wins this year of course - before they can objectively say that Lewis is better than Shumi. And let's hope, for Hamilton's sake, that in the meantime we don't run out of oil. Can you imagine? They all be driving electric cars or hybrids. That would be a shame :)

The number of world championships won is a statistic :confused:

It's complete bull crap to say that a driver will only be as good as MS when they win 7 WDCs. It doesn't take into account the dominance of the car, the lack of a equal team mate, the lack of a decent title challenger etc. etc.

I suspect that Hamilton is as good as Schumacher but we will never know, even if Lewis wins 9 championships then you will have blinkered MS fans saying that his car was more dominant or that Kovalainen isn't as good as Barrichello.

mstillhere

31st August 2008, 23:13

The number of world championships won is a statistic :confused:

It's complete bull crap to say that a driver will only be as good as MS when they win 7 WDCs. It doesn't take into account the dominance of the car, the lack of a equal team mate, the lack of a decent title challenger etc. etc.

I suspect that Hamilton is as good as Schumacher but we will never know, even if Lewis wins 9 championships then you will have blinkered MS fans saying that his car was more dominant or that Kovalainen isn't as good as Barrichello.

So, what you are pretty much saying is there is no point talking about this topic, right? After all ther are too many factors to take in consideration therefore there is not point in trying to compare LH to MS. That's fine by me.

ShiftingGears

1st September 2008, 07:22

Is that right!?! I think and know that's a FACT!!!

It is both a statistic and a fact. So yes, I am right.

Knock-on

1st September 2008, 08:21

So, what you are pretty much saying is there is no point talking about this topic, right? After all ther are too many factors to take in consideration therefore there is not point in trying to compare LH to MS. That's fine by me.

It can be discussed till the cows come home.

We can discuss the strengths and merits of both drivers or even their weaknesses.

We can theorise about the validity of some of those Championships that Schumy won and whether 7 WDC flatters the German.

We can speculate as to Lewis's arrogance, the accusation he has #1 status and what would have happened if he started in a Super aguri.

However, if we are to compare the two drivers that never raced together, we must use Statistics, opinion and logic.

You can never say for a definite FACT that one was better than the other. More successful perhaps but a better driver??? I don't think that is a fact.

Knock-on

1st September 2008, 08:30

Simply find were I specifically said that Benetton co-operated to the same extent as Renault.

And then apologize.

Tamb

Anyone reading those posts know that you were saying the only reason McLaren were punished is because they didn't co-operate to the extent Renault and Benetton did.

You did not specifically say "Benetton co-operated to the same extent as Renault" but that was what you implied.

If you did not imply that then you should apologise for not making yourself clear and giving the wrong impression. However, as a talented wordsmith who takes pride in his ability to convey his argument, I find no evidence that we have misinterpreted your posts.

So, I think you are hiding behind semantics and what you literally said on one minute detail as opposed to what you were trying to argue because the evidence is stacked against you.

Time to give this one up old son and move on ;)

PolePosition_1

1st September 2008, 08:45

Statistically? I hope you guys know what statistics are. You guys keep in bringing this up -and understandibly so, since you got nothing else to use in support of your argument, really.

Sure you can see the difference in winning a title with 4 competitors in the championship hunt and winning the championship when your not racing with anyone else?

In a championship of fighting 4 people with roughly equal cars, your only going to win approx 4 – 5 races. If you’re the only competition the likelihood is your going to win 10+ GP. So even though your actually statistically twice as successful as the driver who fought 3 other drivers for a title, the driver who had to fight for his title will likely have been the better driver.

Simply because lots of drivers can race from start to finish in first. But other qualities are shown when a driver is battling it out for the title. That’s why for many people, people will always bring up the fact that Schumacher insisted on number 1 status, and took it to the extreme throughout his career, in an era of F1 where it wasn’t the done thing. And it wasn’t until the end when media pressure forced him into being more reasonable with regards to his number 1 status requests.

ioan

1st September 2008, 10:21

Well, I agree that Schumacher is the more successful driver out of him and Lewis Hamilton.

But statistics don't really give a true reflection of how good someone is.

I'm a Damon Hill fan, this gentleman won 20% of his race starts....Schumacher won 30%. Jim Clark won 35%! Piquet Snr only won 10% of his races.

I'm not suggest Damon Hill was better than Piquet, but it shows statistics aren't everything.

We've got to look at our opinions, so basically we're never going to agree.

To me, if MS came back to F1 right now in same team as Lewis, I think Lewis would be the faster driver, I think MS was an amazing driver in 2006, but he was no longer at his peak, so I don't think he'd be able to beat Hamilton now.

Who is better, Schumacher at his peak or Hamilton at his peak? We simply don't know yet because Hamilton hasn't peaked yet.

All I can say is that I predict yes from his current form, he's matching MS on races won in proportion, in an era where at any race 4-6 drivers can challenge for a win.

Schumacher won 50% of his GP between 2001 - 2004 when there was no competition (bar 2003).

You better wait another 10 years or so before making yourself look like a fanboy! :laugh:

If Lewis gets 7 titles we will talk about him versus Michael otherwise there is no use to make SF assumptions based on nothing but your personal subjective opinion. :D

ioan

1st September 2008, 10:23

Sure you can see the difference in winning a title with 4 competitors in the championship hunt and winning the championship when your not racing with anyone else?

In a championship of fighting 4 people with roughly equal cars, your only going to win approx 4 – 5 races. If you’re the only competition the likelihood is your going to win 10+ GP. So even though your actually statistically twice as successful as the driver who fought 3 other drivers for a title, the driver who had to fight for his title will likely have been the better driver.

Simply because lots of drivers can race from start to finish in first. But other qualities are shown when a driver is battling it out for the title. That’s why for many people, people will always bring up the fact that Schumacher insisted on number 1 status, and took it to the extreme throughout his career, in an era of F1 where it wasn’t the done thing. And it wasn’t until the end when media pressure forced him into being more reasonable with regards to his number 1 status requests.

Can you enlighten us who are the 4 competitors in about equal cars that Lewy is fighting?!

You can hardly say Massa + maybe Kimi =4 competitors! :rotflmao:

PolePosition_1

1st September 2008, 13:30

Can you enlighten us who are the 4 competitors in about equal cars that Lewy is fighting?!

You can hardly say Massa + maybe Kimi =4 competitors! :rotflmao:

Mate, I'm not talking about Lewis Hamilton.

I didn't say his name once.

I'm using an example I've made up to highlight how statistics don't show the full picture.

PolePosition_1

1st September 2008, 13:33

You better wait another 10 years or so before making yourself look like a fanboy! :laugh:

If Lewis gets 7 titles we will talk about him versus Michael otherwise there is no use to make SF assumptions based on nothing but your personal subjective opinion. :D

I'm not a Lewis fan. I support Alonso.

But I'm reasonably and unbiased in my opinions.

Surely the fact that you've straightly assumed I'm a lewis fan shows how your so fixated you are with being "anti-Lewis".

Just out of interest then, how would you compare Lewis Hamilton to another driver? As good as Rubens? Webber? Bourdais? Sato?

If you had to choose one.

PolePosition_1

1st September 2008, 13:36

Simply find were I specifically said that Benetton co-operated to the same extent as Renault.

And then apologize.

You were saying part of the reason for the huge punishment of McLaren was that they didn't co-operate to the same extent that Benetton and Renault did?

Surely if thats your point of view, you are stating that they co-operated to a similar extent?

But I can't apologise, as I think thats what you meant? I've asked you to clarify what you meant but you have ignored that. If thats not what you meant, then please tell me, and I will apologise for misreading your post. But then your point about McLaren being punished for not co-operating will be blown apart.

ioan

1st September 2008, 13:53

Mate, I'm not talking about Lewis Hamilton.

I didn't say his name once.

I'm using an example I've made up to highlight how statistics don't show the full picture.

I see, you use made up examples to prove a point against real life! Way to go, NOT! :rolleyes:

ioan

1st September 2008, 13:54

I'm not a Lewis fan. I support Alonso.

But I'm reasonably and unbiased in my opinions.

And modest too! :rotflmao:

ShiftingGears

1st September 2008, 14:12

I see, you use made up examples to prove a point against real life! Way to go, NOT! :rolleyes:

Is that just a petty attack or an inability to comprehend the fact that a fictitious example can be used to highlight the logical flaws in an argument, or both?!

On topic. Hamilton has a long way to go to turn everything to his advantage like Schumacher did.

mstillhere

1st September 2008, 14:46

It is both a statistic and a fact. So yes, I am right.

It's a FACT that can be used for statical purposes, buddy - nice try though!! So the FACTS are, as a reminder:

MS= 7 (SEVEN)record world champioships

LH= 0 (ZERO) There goes your comparisons to MS. Go and argue with that.

Knock-on

1st September 2008, 14:46

Is that just a petty attack or an inability to comprehend the fact that a fictitious example can be used to highlight the logical flaws in an argument, or both?!

On topic. Hamilton has a long way to go to turn everything to his advantage like Schumacher did.

Personally, I hope that never happens.

The last thing we need is a period of complete dominance from a single team and zero competition within that team. It's bad for Motorsport.

mstillhere

1st September 2008, 14:55

Let me ask you a question. Stewart won 3 championships, Prost won 4. Who is the better driver? Now you may well say Prost, but others will say Stewart. Neither is right or wrong, both camps will have their reasons for their choice. But you cannot simply say that as the Frenchman won one more championship that automatically makes him a "better" driver.

1. Who is Stewart?
2. I measure success in sports by the NUMBER of victories. The "oh, man I was close to win" people fom me don't count. Therefore the answer to yopur querstion is: Prost. why? Because he won 4 times. Numbers=fact

mstillhere

1st September 2008, 15:00

Sure you can see the difference in winning a title with 4 competitors in the championship hunt and winning the championship when your not racing with anyone else?

In a championship of fighting 4 people with roughly equal cars, your only going to win approx 4 – 5 races. If you’re the only competition the likelihood is your going to win 10+ GP. So even though your actually statistically twice as successful as the driver who fought 3 other drivers for a title, the driver who had to fight for his title will likely have been the better driver.

Simply because lots of drivers can race from start to finish in first. But other qualities are shown when a driver is battling it out for the title. That’s why for many people, people will always bring up the fact that Schumacher insisted on number 1 status, and took it to the extreme throughout his career, in an era of F1 where it wasn’t the done thing. And it wasn’t until the end when media pressure forced him into being more reasonable with regards to his number 1 status requests.

It's all hypothetical. So your reasoning, as brilliant as it is, can apply to whoever. You can try to argue that LH is better than MS but you are not going to have facts supporting your argument. So....

Knock-on

1st September 2008, 15:09

1. Who is Stewart?

I would have thought old Jonny Boy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Stewart

2. I measure success in sports by the NUMBER of victories. The "oh, man I was close to win" people fom me don't count. Therefore the answer to yopur querstion is: Prost. why? Because he won 4 times. Numbers=fact

So, not much point debating. All you need is a list of GP winners and that's that :rolleyes:

It's all hypothetical. So your reasoning, as brilliant as it is, can apply to whoever. You can try to argue that LH is better than MS but you are not going to have facts supporting your argument. So....

Has anyone suggested that LH is better?

PolePosition_1

1st September 2008, 15:09

I see, you use made up examples to prove a point against real life! Way to go, NOT! :rolleyes:

Ok, so in your eyes does winning in best car with no competition more worthy than winning a championship with 4 competitors?

I can use a real life example if you want. Schumacher winning the title in 2003 was a lot more worthy than his title win in 2004. In 2003 he had to beat Williams and McLaren. In 2004 his car was so superior, and he didn't race his team-mate, so didn't really have any competition.

Can you not see the difference?

Its not a dig at Schumacher himself, its not his fault his rival teams couldn't make a car good enough to compete against his Ferrari. But winning a title against relatively similar equipment is more significant than winning the title in superior equipment. Do you not agree?

PolePosition_1

1st September 2008, 15:11

It's a FACT that can be used for statical purposes, buddy - nice try though!! So the FACTS are, as a reminder:

MS= 7 (SEVEN)record world champioships

LH= 0 (ZERO) There goes your comparisons to MS. Go and argue with that.

Yes, facts can be the only factor in presenting a statical (aka statistical) argument. But a statistical argument is not the full picture.

Knock-on

1st September 2008, 15:14

Yes, facts can be the only factor in presenting a statical (aka statistical) argument. But a statistical argument is not the full picture.

Where's Brockman and his Bikini quote :D

PolePosition_1

1st September 2008, 15:17

1. Who is Stewart?
2. I measure success in sports by the NUMBER of victories. The "oh, man I was close to win" people fom me don't count. Therefore the answer to yopur querstion is: Prost. why? Because he won 4 times. Numbers=fact

Who was the best driver in Hungary 2008?

Most would argue Massa (myself included).

Statistically Heikki was the best driver. Statistically Massa was the 17th best driver that day.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying statistics don't count, they're a good indicator of who is the best. And Schumacher is without doubt one of the most talented drivers to have ever raced in F1. But thats open to interpretation because statistics don't show the full picture.

PolePosition_1

1st September 2008, 15:23

It's all hypothetical. So your reasoning, as brilliant as it is, can apply to whoever. You can try to argue that LH is better than MS but you are not going to have facts supporting your argument. So....

Thats the thing, I'm not actually arguing he is. I'm merely stating he has potential.

The facts show he has won 30% of the races he has competed in, same as Schumacher. Hamilton isn't going to have won 7 world championships in 1 in a half seasons, so its pointless arguing Hamilton is better than Schumacher statistically. And I don't know any in this thread who states Hamilton is statistically better than Schumacher.

ArrowsFA1

1st September 2008, 15:24

Numbers=fact

Where's Brockman and his Bikini quote :D
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than for illumination.

Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say.

Then there is the man who drowned crossing a stream with an average depth of six inches.

Knock-on

1st September 2008, 15:40

Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than for illumination.

Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say.

Then there is the man who drowned crossing a stream with an average depth of six inches.

:laugh:

You are God amongst us mere mortals.

We could also have:

Torture numbers and they will confess anything.

Statistics can be made to prove anything... even the truth.

Facts are stubborn things but statistics are more pliable.

In any 50/50 situation, statistically you will be wrong more often than not.

and my personal favourite.

98% of all statistics are made up :D

Dave B

1st September 2008, 15:54

1. Who is Stewart?
Am I seriously debating the intricacies of F1 with someone who has never heard of Jackie Stewart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Stewart)? :crazy:

Where's Brockman and his Bikini quote :D
Not me, old chap. Arrows gets the credit for that wonderful line.

Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than for illumination.

Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say.

Then there is the man who drowned crossing a stream with an average depth of six inches.
See? Perceptive chap, that Arrows. :)

Dave B

1st September 2008, 15:59

2. I measure success in sports by the NUMBER of victories. The "oh, man I was close to win" people fom me don't count. Therefore the answer to yopur querstion is: Prost. why? Because he won 4 times. Numbers=fact

So how do explain the high esteem in which many hold Stirling Moss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_Moss) or Gilles Villeneuve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Villeneuve) (I've provided links in case you've not heard of them), given that neither gentleman ever won a Championship?

Could it possibly be that talent is not always a tangible thing which can be measured and quantified? Or are people ust idiots?

Knock-on

1st September 2008, 16:08

ioan

1st September 2008, 17:26

Am I seriously debating the intricacies of F1 with someone who has never heard of Jackie Stewart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Stewart)? :crazy:

You mean that guy Max Mosley was so fondly talking about?! :laugh:

ioan

1st September 2008, 17:31

2. I measure success in sports by the NUMBER of victories. The "oh, man I was close to win" people fom me don't count. Therefore the answer to yopur querstion is: Prost. why? Because he won 4 times. Numbers=fact

You're losing your time.
As suggested by the latest posts most people around here dn not really know what statistics are, they just believe they do.

ioan

1st September 2008, 17:34

Is that just a petty attack or an inability to comprehend the fact that a fictitious example can be used to highlight the logical flaws in an argument, or both?!

As long as the fictitious example doesn't resemble reality at all it can't be used to highlight anything, but the logical flaws of the one that dreamed it up.

Knock-on

1st September 2008, 18:03

As long as the fictitious example doesn't resemble reality at all it can't be used to highlight anything, but the logical flaws of the one that dreamed it up.

But the ficticious example does resemble reality so logically the above sentence makes no sense, especially when PP1 quantified his position further by posting:

Ok, so in your eyes does winning in best car with no competition more worthy than winning a championship with 4 competitors?

I can use a real life example if you want. Schumacher winning the title in 2003 was a lot more worthy than his title win in 2004. In 2003 he had to beat Williams and McLaren. In 2004 his car was so superior, and he didn't race his team-mate, so didn't really have any competition.

Can you not see the difference?

Its not a dig at Schumacher himself, its not his fault his rival teams couldn't make a car good enough to compete against his Ferrari. But winning a title against relatively similar equipment is more significant than winning the title in superior equipment. Do you not agree?

So, do you agree or were you ignoring the bits that rubbish what you wrote.

Dave B

1st September 2008, 18:05

You mean that guy Max Mosley was so fondly talking about?! :laugh:

That's him. The guy who proved that being labelled as "stupid" at school - in an era when dyslexia was not recognised - is no barrier to making a success of your life if you're determined enough. His condition later saw him dismissed as a "certifiable halfwit" by your mate Max, in one of his more crass and repugnant outbursts.

Daniel

1st September 2008, 19:13

That's him. The guy who proved that being labelled as "stupid" at school - in an era when dyslexia was not recognised - is no barrier to making a success of your life if you're determined enough. His condition later saw him dismissed as a "certifiable halfwit" by your mate Max, in one of his more crass and repugnant outbursts.
Oh come on :) not even Ioan likes Max Mosley. Perhaps Max's mum does if she's still around but surely no one else does.

ArrowsFA1

1st September 2008, 21:25

Some of us are tuned into the "either / or" world that is Black and White where the rest of us enjoy the marvel that is Technicolour.
'Tis a marvellous thing that technicolour. Quite marvellous :)

BDunnell

1st September 2008, 21:54

That's him. The guy who proved that being labelled as "stupid" at school - in an era when dyslexia was not recognised - is no barrier to making a success of your life if you're determined enough. His condition later saw him dismissed as a "certifiable halfwit" by your mate Max, in one of his more crass and repugnant outbursts.

But who cares about all of that? After all, if Stewart were now to suddenly say that Bernie is a poisonous dwarf and that Lewis is an arrogant t****r, ioan would mysteriously change his opinion and call on the Pope to sanctify Sir Jackie.

ioan

1st September 2008, 22:03

But who cares about all of that? After all, if Stewart were now to suddenly say that Bernie is a poisonous dwarf and that Lewis is an arrogant t****r, ioan would mysteriously change his opinion and call on the Pope to sanctify Sir Jackie.

Nah, I don't believe in all that religious stuff! :p :

BDunnell

1st September 2008, 22:04

Nah, I don't believe in all that religious stuff! :p :

But the rest of my statement was OK? ;)

mstillhere

2nd September 2008, 01:34

So how do explain the high esteem in which many hold Stirling Moss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_Moss) or Gilles Villeneuve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Villeneuve) (I've provided links in case you've not heard of them), given that neither gentleman ever won a Championship?

Could it possibly be that talent is not always a tangible thing which can be measured and quantified? Or are people ust idiots?

I have heard of these pilots many times. Unfortuntely, back then I was kind of young therefore unable to appreciate their skills. The only Villeneuve I know better unfortunately talked too much and he's writing songs in Canada now. :)

However, the fact that I don't know so well these pilots does not mean I am not able to see the differences between LH and MS - like it occurs to so many other people who know all those champions better than me. The fact that they are all famous drivers without ever winning a world championship puts them in a place in the history of Formula 1 according to their achievements. To date, nobody has been better than MS. Winning seven WDC -almost 8 - it's not something that commonly happens. For that matter I feel fortunate to have lived in a period where I could personally see MS race and win. Any compairison to MS and any other driver IMO - and in the opinion of others as well - is something that would never have people agreeing to an universal statement, due to an incredible amount of variables that would apply. Therefore facts (numbers) are, in my view the only viable solution, since they don't leave much space for
(mis)interpretation.

ioan

2nd September 2008, 07:00

But the rest of my statement was OK? ;)

The part about Bernie is right on, as even if I'm not a Hamilton supporter, for several reasons, he clearly is a top driver.

ShiftingGears

2nd September 2008, 07:09

It's a FACT that can be used for statical purposes, buddy - nice try though!!

Congratulations. You have learnt the ability to repeat what I just said.

ShiftingGears

2nd September 2008, 07:22

As long as the fictitious example doesn't resemble reality at all it can't be used to highlight anything, but the logical flaws of the one that dreamed it up.

It resembles a real situation, with easy to understand logic.

Here is the simple logic.

Many evenly matched competitors fighting for the championship = the more likely it is for a championship winning driver to win less in that season, as opposed to a driver with only one major competitor, or none.

See - 2007 compared to 2006.

ArrowsFA1

2nd September 2008, 08:23

For those who rely on statistics and numbers I'd recommend you read "Crashed and Byrned (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crashed-Byrned-Greatest-Racing-Driver/dp/1848310285/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220340273&sr=1-1)". Really read it.

For all these discussions about which driver is the "best", and who has the most WDC's, there are real stories about why and how one driver gets to be talked about on a motorsport forum, and another barely gets a mention.

jens

2nd September 2008, 10:51

I'm not going to add much to this endless debate, but mention a few things.

Schumacher winning the title in 2003 was a lot more worthy than his title win in 2004.

I don't think titles can be divided in such way to more and less worthy. A title is a title. If WDC has been won in dominant style, then I'd say it's even more impressive, because a team has managed to totally outclass the competition throughout the season. After all, titles are a result of team effort and domination is a sign of a thoroughly brilliant job by the whole team.

Generally on the debate in this topic. I think you are concentrating too much on statistics. I want to ask whether you want to compare drivers achievements or their driving skills? For the former you can well use statistics, but for the latter one try to concentrate on actual racing instead of pure numbers, especially as statistics can often be a misleading factor and they should be used carefully. Or like Benjamin Disraeli arguably said: "There are lies, damned lies and statistics."

PolePosition_1

2nd September 2008, 11:47

To date, nobody has been better than MS. Winning seven WDC -almost 8 - it's not something that commonly happens.

Surely if statistics is the only thing that measures how good a driver is, saying almost 8 times is worthless and does not go towards how good he is by your reasoning? Because he doesn't.

Personally I agree, Schumacher was in contention for titles in 94,95,97,98,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2006. Personally I think thats an amazing fact, to have a driver at the top of F1 for 13 years striaght is amazing. And demonstrates how good the guy actually was.

So fair enough, dismiss statistics if you like, but at end of the day it doesn't give true picture of how good a driver is.

1997 - who was better, Schumacher or JV? To me and most people Schumacher was, but by statistics JV was.

Sure statistics work in favour of MS simply because he is the most successful driver in the history of F1. But then it can also work against him, because he was even more successful in reality than his statistics show.

PolePosition_1

2nd September 2008, 11:49

I'm not going to add much to this endless debate, but mention a few things.

I don't think titles can be divided in such way to more and less worthy. A title is a title. If WDC has been won in dominant style, then I'd say it's even more impressive, because a team has managed to totally outclass the competition throughout the season. After all, titles are a result of team effort and domination is a sign of a thoroughly brilliant job by the whole team.

Generally on the debate in this topic. I think you are concentrating too much on statistics. I want to ask whether you want to compare drivers achievements or their driving skills? For the former you can well use statistics, but for the latter one try to concentrate on actual racing instead of pure numbers, especially as statistics can often be a misleading factor and they should be used carefully. Or like Benjamin Disraeli arguably said: "There are lies, damned lies and statistics."

I agree, if a driver wins by a large margin because his car is so superior, its good for the team, the whole team. But it doesn't stretch a drivers ability. And we're talking about drivers here.

555-04Q2

3rd September 2008, 12:11

Knock-on

3rd September 2008, 12:15

So, you have 3000 odd posts and I have over 11,000.

That means I am a much better poster than you :D

Stats are stats after all!!

Or could there be other mitigating factors?

MrJan

3rd September 2008, 12:19

Statistics are all we have to compare against drivers, especially if they never raced in the same era. A company bases its success on how much money it makes, let face it, thats why you are in business, to make lots of money. The same as racing, successful stats = successful results which is the only measure a team looks for. The rest is all non-relevant. Success and stats go hand in hand, period.

If that was the case then race winner Fisichella wouldn't be in a tinpot team but at McLaren in place of Heikki, or BMW or any of the other teams with drivers with less success.

Any racing team worth their salt will look beyond statistics and recognise talent. That's why Kimi went from Formula Renault straight to F1, because his talent was evident. If you went by statistics then a driver from F3000 (as I think it was back then) would have been preferable.

Statistics are an aid, not a method.

3rd September 2008, 14:08

Tamb

Anyone reading those posts know that you were saying the only reason McLaren were punished is because they didn't co-operate to the extent Renault and Benetton did.

You did not specifically say "Benetton co-operated to the same extent as Renault" but that was what you implied.

If you did not imply that then you should apologise for not making yourself clear and giving the wrong impression. However, as a talented wordsmith who takes pride in his ability to convey his argument, I find no evidence that we have misinterpreted your posts.

So, I think you are hiding behind semantics and what you literally said on one minute detail as opposed to what you were trying to argue because the evidence is stacked against you.

Time to give this one up old son and move on ;)

The factual evidence is that

a) - Renault - Complied fully with the FIA.
b) - Benetton - Complied after a delay due to the legal ownership of source codes.
c) - Mclaren - Only came clean after two opportunities and an FIA visit to Woking.

If you cannot see that there are differences and the reasons for the fines being

a) none
b) $100,000
c) $100,000,000,

then it's no wonder that you have implied the wrong thing.

Evidently no amount of word-craft on my behalf will help you see through your patented Ronavision spectacles.

ArrowsFA1

3rd September 2008, 14:16

The factual evidence is that

a) - Renault - Complied fully with the FIA.
When were they in receipt of McLaren documents and when did they admit to having them?

3rd September 2008, 14:28

When were they in receipt of McLaren documents and when did they admit to having them?

Renault admitted to having them when they were called to the FIA.

Mclaren did not admit to having them when initially called to the FIA.

See the difference?

Knock-on

3rd September 2008, 14:55

Renault admitted to having them when they were called to the FIA.

Mclaren did not admit to having them when initially called to the FIA.

See the difference?

Renault had them for about a year and they were distributed at the most senior levels within the Renault management until someone moved from Renault to McLaren and spilled the beans that they had seen the McLaren documents.

McLaren, within a short period of time of being informed, offered to Ferrari and the FIA full access to physical and design documenation of current and future car to prove nothing had been used from the Ferrari plans. This was even before the first FIA meeting.

You have a funny knack of getting things back to front.

ArrowsFA1

3rd September 2008, 14:58

Renault admitted to having them when they were called to the FIA.
That doesn't answer my question.

Renault's statement said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63874) "On the 6th September 2007 it came to our attention that an engineer (Mr Phil Mackereth) who joined the team from McLaren in Sept 2006 had brought with him some information that was considered to be proprietary to McLaren."

In other words, a year went by before any admission from Renault. A year in which two of their competitors were involved in a similar situation. During that time "Renault engineers received and considered" this McLaren information.

Given the circumstances at the time did they not consider complying fully with the FIA during the course of that year?

Knock-on

3rd September 2008, 15:00

That doesn't answer my question.

Renault's statement said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63874) "On the 6th September 2007 it came to our attention that an engineer (Mr Phil Mackereth) who joined the team from McLaren in Sept 2006 had brought with him some information that was considered to be proprietary to McLaren."

In other words, a year went by before any admission from Renault. A year in which two of their competitors were involved in a similar situation. During that time "Renault engineers received and considered" this McLaren information.

Given the circumstances at the time did they not consider complying fully with the FIA during the course of that year?

In fact, it only really came to light when Flav started shooting his mouth off about how Mclaren should be punished and Ron thought that enough was enough.

PolePosition_1

3rd September 2008, 16:33

The factual evidence is that

a) - Renault - Complied fully with the FIA.
b) - Benetton - Complied after a delay due to the legal ownership of source codes.
c) - Mclaren - Only came clean after two opportunities and an FIA visit to Woking.

If you cannot see that there are differences and the reasons for the fines being

a) none
b) $100,000
c) $100,000,000,

then it's no wonder that you have implied the wrong thing.

Evidently no amount of word-craft on my behalf will help you see through your patented Ronavision spectacles.

Thats the whole point of our debate though, that the FIA's decision seem to go against McLaren, hence the difference in punishment.