Jump to content


Photo

Max Mosley: the inside story on McLaren's 'spygate' and the F1 teams breakaway (merged)


  • Please log in to reply
821 replies to this topic

#1 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 13 December 2009 - 04:39

Max Mosley: the inside story on McLaren's 'spygate' and the F1 teams breakaway

On July 3, 2007 I got a call from Ron Dennis, the boss of the McLaren Formula One team, to say that at 7.30 that morning, lawyers acting for Ferrari had raided the home of Mike Coughlan, McLaren's chief designer, and recovered CDs which were believed to contain the entire technical details of the current Ferrari Formula One car. "Spygate" had begun.

Here's the link to the article:

http://www.telegraph...-breakaway.html

I would advise that you read the article in its entirety before commenting. I've already seen one person comment on an extract and embarrass themselves because of it.

Advertisement

#2 Ricardo F1

Ricardo F1
  • Member

  • 38,850 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 13 December 2009 - 06:03

Kinda relies on you believing a single word Max Mosley says. I kinda got over that barrier some years ago. Max at this point is sounding very much like Dick Cheney.

#3 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 13 December 2009 - 06:11

Kinda relies on you believing a single word Max Mosley says. I kinda got over that barrier some years ago. Max at this point is sounding very much like Dick Cheney.


Why is Max making any sounds at all?

Looks like he was bored and felt like publishing a half-assed rehash.. :yawnface:

As usual, look at everything that was left unsaid, that's where the fun stuff is.

Edited by Slowinfastout, 13 December 2009 - 06:14.


#4 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 13 December 2009 - 06:31

Kinda relies on you believing a single word Max Mosley says. I kinda got over that barrier some years ago. Max at this point is sounding very much like Dick Cheney.

It's a FOTA-good, FIA-bad attitude that got us this way in the first place. Mosley describes the way Ferrari put serious pressure on the FIA to prosecute McLaren, despite the FIA having a lack of evidence. You'll also notice that in the section on the FOTA breakaway, almost every single major action - Ferrari's legal action in the middle of a discussion, Toyota's attempted walkout - is performed by a manufacturer. The FOTA breakaway was not a teams initiative. It was the manufacturers. If the manufacturers had to spend four or five hundred millions dollars to be more competitive, they would. And they would naturally be opposed to any action by the FIA that would remove that advantage. If a FOTA breakaway had gone ahead, the manufacturers would have driven the sport into the ground as they spent billions of dollars with no-one to keep them in line. They'd all be looking out for themselves in the way the sport was governed and the way the new technical rules were introduced. We would have been fine to begin with, but the honeymoon period wouldn't ahve lasted long before the tams realised they could start setting things up to benefit themselves.

I'm not saying this article redeems Mosley. But I don't see anything in it that is suspiciously inconsistent. At his very best, Mosley only ever did as much harm as he did good, and that's me being generous. And as we've seen from the forums in Monaco and Orlando, Jean Todt is already having a positive effect on the sport, doing things Mosley never woud have done. Mosley was a villain, yet I'm open-minded about it. I'm not going to be assuming it's propaganda or an eleventh-hour attempt to regain credibility. Given the amount of criticism he's been receiving, I think it's only fair that he at least has the opportunity to defend himself, and this article delivers just that, which is why I posted it. I'm not expecting anyone to agree with me, because I know the anti-Mosley brigade is quite millitant. If he came out and declared the sky to be blue, I know you'd all disagree with him on principle.

As usual, look at everything that was left unsaid, that's where the fun stuff is.

By that, I assume you mean Renault?

Looking at the article, it's a pretty hefty piece. I'd estimate it as being a good 2000 words at least. You'll note that Mosley only recounts the McLaren investigations and the FOTA breakaway saga; the article ends with FOTA going rogue. It's not like Mosley skipped ahead from the breakaway to his departure and the election of Jean Todt. No, I'd say this is the first part of the story, with a second one - dealing with Renault and Singapore - being held back because of space constraints. The Telegraph is like any other paper: they have a limited amount of space to give away to articles; they might have an online component, and hence space is not an issue, but they tend to post articles both online and in the paper. They like those articles to be as homogenous as possible, because then you get into tricky situations where the same article implies two different things based on which version you read.

I'd actually prefer that the article be split like this (assuming there is another in the works). It gives Mosley a chance to do everything in detail, instead of including everything in one go, without fear of leaving holes wide open.

#5 Max!

Max!
  • Member

  • 505 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 13 December 2009 - 08:24

It's a FOTA-good, FIA-bad attitude that got us this way in the first place. Mosley describes the way Ferrari put serious pressure on the FIA to prosecute McLaren, despite the FIA having a lack of evidence. You'll also notice that in the section on the FOTA breakaway, almost every single major action - Ferrari's legal action in the middle of a discussion, Toyota's attempted walkout - is performed by a manufacturer. The FOTA breakaway was not a teams initiative. It was the manufacturers. If the manufacturers had to spend four or five hundred millions dollars to be more competitive, they would. And they would naturally be opposed to any action by the FIA that would remove that advantage. If a FOTA breakaway had gone ahead, the manufacturers would have driven the sport into the ground as they spent billions of dollars with no-one to keep them in line. They'd all be looking out for themselves in the way the sport was governed and the way the new technical rules were introduced. We would have been fine to begin with, but the honeymoon period wouldn't ahve lasted long before the tams realised they could start setting things up to benefit themselves.

I'm not saying this article redeems Mosley. But I don't see anything in it that is suspiciously inconsistent. At his very best, Mosley only ever did as much harm as he did good, and that's me being generous. And as we've seen from the forums in Monaco and Orlando, Jean Todt is already having a positive effect on the sport, doing things Mosley never woud have done. Mosley was a villain, yet I'm open-minded about it. I'm not going to be assuming it's propaganda or an eleventh-hour attempt to regain credibility. Given the amount of criticism he's been receiving, I think it's only fair that he at least has the opportunity to defend himself, and this article delivers just that, which is why I posted it. I'm not expecting anyone to agree with me, because I know the anti-Mosley brigade is quite millitant. If he came out and declared the sky to be blue, I know you'd all disagree with him on principle.


By that, I assume you mean Renault?

Looking at the article, it's a pretty hefty piece. I'd estimate it as being a good 2000 words at least. You'll note that Mosley only recounts the McLaren investigations and the FOTA breakaway saga; the article ends with FOTA going rogue. It's not like Mosley skipped ahead from the breakaway to his departure and the election of Jean Todt. No, I'd say this is the first part of the story, with a second one - dealing with Renault and Singapore - being held back because of space constraints. The Telegraph is like any other paper: they have a limited amount of space to give away to articles; they might have an online component, and hence space is not an issue, but they tend to post articles both online and in the paper. They like those articles to be as homogenous as possible, because then you get into tricky situations where the same article implies two different things based on which version you read.

I'd actually prefer that the article be split like this (assuming there is another in the works). It gives Mosley a chance to do everything in detail, instead of including everything in one go, without fear of leaving holes wide open.


Could´t agree more!

Had a good laugh when I read ´ I even had a lengthy call from Fiat chief executive Sergio Marchionne, who is someone to be taken seriously. ´ as opposed to LucadM he no doubt means.

#6 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 5,620 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 13 December 2009 - 09:35

Cry me a river Max. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him? Did he ever care what we think anyway? Maybe in this one instance mentioned, he was right. Maybe McLaren deserved a ban. But how many times did he heavily penalise Ferrari? Renault got off pretty lightly in the spygate thing (to put it mildly). Too much of Max's decisions were based on personal rivalries and relationships instead of being fair or harsh to all. Last years diffuser case was the first time I've seen Ferrari lose a big political case about parts on the car, and by some coincidence Todt wasn't at Ferrari anymore and Ross Brawn was with a new team. If you look back it wasn't Ferrari he was favouring, it was his friendship with Todt. As soon as Todt left, he went head to head with Ferrari with Luca. Glad to see the back of him.

Todt was heavily backed by Max (what a shock), and has prior ties to Ferrari but so far in the short time he's been elected he's been doing pretty well. Todt could be just as bad as Mosley in the longrun but at least it's someone new. Hopefully the explanations for new regulations will be more truthful instead of the umbrella reason of "safety". And they can be more thought out in advance. Constant rules changes in an era of cost cutting is a contradiction in itself. Maybe FIA can have some credability again. Biggest thing I'm worried about at the moment is who the new tyre manufacturer will be. This isn't any fault of FIA as Bridgestone withdrew, but it has alot of potential issues. The current tyres have alot of development dollars and manpower hours behind them. How can a new company come along and match this when there isn't any testing in season, and only limited testing off season? Tyres are one of the most fundamental things on the car. We have seen in the past what happens when teams bring unusable tyres to an event. And inconsistant tyres can bring lottery conditions that mix up a championship. Todt needs to manage this problem properly.

#7 BinaryDad

BinaryDad
  • Member

  • 1,017 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 December 2009 - 09:49

For me, the interview only really confirms my previous suspicions about Max Mosely. While have always agreed with his stance on reducing costs and the threat that manufacturers have on the stability of F1, it doesn't hide the fact that he really did have it in for Ron Dennis, a man that Max has referred to as "just a mechanic". But given Max's background, he's always going to have problems with somebody who has worked his way up to success.

Some telling things about the interview

Despite this, the manufacturer teams were still spending $400-500 million each year. This was clearly unsustainable, given that a contest which would be indistinguishable when watched on TV or from the grandstands could be organised with greater technical freedom for between 10 per cent and 20 per cent of those budgets.


What Max seems to neglect is that it's because of his own rule changes that caused the costs to spiral out of control. Instead of spending cash on innovations, teams were forced into restrictive aero regulations having to spend masses of cash on minute improvements for a mere hundredth of a second. It was Max himself who brought in rules that restricted technical freedom. Not to mention this daft "two compound" rules which forced up development costs per-track as well.

And let's not go into this constant change of the engines. How much has this driven up development costs? And all on Max.

The only safe thing would have been to exclude them from 2007 immediately and also from the 2008 championship. But with little or no income for 18 months and over 1,000 employees, their situation would have been dire. A ban would also have destroyed the great championship battle which was going on between Lewis Hamilton and Kimi Raikkonen.

I was for a ban. I understood the consequences but I believe in the old legal maxim "hard cases make bad law"


And yet, you were more than happy for Renault to walk off scot-free for the exact same charge. Being in possession of another teams I.P. One team, you wanted to ban for two year regardless of the consequences but the other, oh no, they might LEAVE. We can't have that! If this doesn't show a strong anti-RD/McLaren bias I don't know what does. You were happy to ruin one team, but treated the other with kid-gloves. Never mind that the head of Renault has been the figure head of more scandals in F1 than any other team-chief.



#8 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 13 December 2009 - 09:50

God, he really is an utterly horrible old prick.

Crawl back into the sea Mosley, you are total ****.

#9 Motormedia

Motormedia
  • Member

  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 13 December 2009 - 10:02

the manufacturers would have driven the sport into the ground as they spent billions of dollars with no-one to keep them in line. They'd all be looking out for themselves in the way the sport was governed and the way the new technical rules were introduced. We would have been fine to begin with, but the honeymoon period wouldn't ahve lasted long before the tams realised they could start setting things up to benefit themselves.


The teams did drive themselves into the ground, didn't they? They left one by one, proving Mosley was right in his fears that the sport was threatened and hadn't it been for the FIA getting some new teams into the sport, it would have been over.


I'm not saying this article redeems Mosley. But I don't see anything in it that is suspiciously inconsistent. At his very best, Mosley only ever did as much harm as he did good, and that's me being generous. And as we've seen from the forums in Monaco and Orlando, Jean Todt is already having a positive effect on the sport, doing things Mosley never woud have done. Mosley was a villain, yet I'm open-minded about it. I'm not going to be assuming it's propaganda or an eleventh-hour attempt to regain credibility. Given the amount of criticism he's been receiving, I think it's only fair that he at least has the opportunity to defend himself, and this article delivers just that, which is why I posted it. I'm not expecting anyone to agree with me, because I know the anti-Mosley brigade is quite millitant. If he came out and declared the sky to be blue, I know you'd all disagree with him on principle.


A lot can be said for Mosleys reign but a lot can also be said for the manufacturers and all the other sharks in the tank. To govern F1 must have been harder than governing any other sport given the dependency and power of the competitiors. Jean Todt seems to have a positive effect but he is now working in an almost manufacturer free environment compared to Mosley. How Todt would have faired under the same conditions that Mosley had to face, we will probably never know. FOTA is far from the threat they were during the conflict with FIA (in fact, their gun was unloaded already back then as the threat of a breakaway series would never have materiales given the fact that the manufacturers left the sport after they won the fight with FIA). FOA exists as an organisation but it is severly weakened. Internally the remaining manufacturers are in a minority among a big pool of small teams, each of which will look to their own interests as soon as things will heat up. FOTA will split in a few years time, with or without the help of Todt consciously or not exploiting the weakness of the organisation. In any case, FIA will surely get the blame for manipulating the teams to impose their will.


#10 Motormedia

Motormedia
  • Member

  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 13 December 2009 - 10:05

And yet, you were more than happy for Renault to walk off scot-free for the exact same charge. Being in possession of another teams I.P. One team, you wanted to ban for two year regardless of the consequences but the other, oh no, they might LEAVE. We can't have that! If this doesn't show a strong anti-RD/McLaren bias I don't know what does. You were happy to ruin one team, but treated the other with kid-gloves. Never mind that the head of Renault has been the figure head of more scandals in F1 than any other team-chief.


So, how do you know that Mosley was happy? How do you know that he didn't want a ban? If he was weakened already, as he says in the article, he wasn't any stronger by the time the Renault case was decided.

#11 Talking Point

Talking Point
  • Member

  • 201 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 December 2009 - 10:08

God, he really is an utterly horrible old prick.

Crawl back into the sea Mosley, you are total ****.

What is it exactly about this article that you disapprove of? :confused:

#12 Stuko

Stuko
  • Member

  • 565 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 13 December 2009 - 10:14

So Ron is a liar and a cheater. (same kind of person as Max i think, .....and no so diferent to Flavio)
First call Ron-Max about sygate is nothing to do with Hungary qualy issue.
Lewis should thanks Ferrari and FIA part of his 2008 WDC.


#13 Mansell4PM

Mansell4PM
  • Member

  • 225 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 December 2009 - 10:16

So, how do you know that Mosley was happy? How do you know that he didn't want a ban? If he was weakened already, as he says in the article, he wasn't any stronger by the time the Renault case was decided.


It should also be considered that Renault's core business is different from that of McLaren's. Renault don't NEED F1, they just chose to be there at the time. A ban would probably meant they wouldn't have come back. McLaren are first and foremost an F1 team, and would have been itching to get back the second a ban was over.

Which isn't really the right way to apply punishments - by weighing up their effects, and thus allowing inconsistency.

This article does paint Max in a better light in some respects, but instances such as this help explain why FOTA advanced as far as it did with its breakaway threat.

The remainder of this tale from Max's POV may throw up some surprises though.


#14 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 13 December 2009 - 10:18

And yet, you were more than happy for Renault to walk off scot-free for the exact same charge. Being in possession of another teams I.P. One team, you wanted to ban for two year regardless of the consequences but the other, oh no, they might LEAVE. We can't have that! If this doesn't show a strong anti-RD/McLaren bias I don't know what does. You were happy to ruin one team, but treated the other with kid-gloves. Never mind that the head of Renault has been the figure head of more scandals in F1 than any other team-chief.

McLaren: accused of unlawfully acquiring Ferrari's technical data and using it to build their 2007 car.
Renault: accused of having one of their drivers deliberately crashing to manipulate the outcome of the race.

Both of them are cases of cheating, but that's where the similarities end. It's like the difference between robbery and burglary and trying to pass them off as the same thing. Renault would not have been called before the WMSC on the same charges as McLaren.

#15 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 13 December 2009 - 10:41

Poor old Max. It reads a bit like Mansell's book. Why did he write it?

"Everyone's against me"

:wave: Max

#16 Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast
  • Paddock Club Host

  • 4,555 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 13 December 2009 - 10:51

McLaren: accused of unlawfully acquiring Ferrari's technical data and using it to build their 2007 car.
Renault: accused of having one of their drivers deliberately crashing to manipulate the outcome of the race.

Both of them are cases of cheating, but that's where the similarities end. It's like the difference between robbery and burglary and trying to pass them off as the same thing. Renault would not have been called before the WMSC on the same charges as McLaren.


I think BinaryDad was referring to this case - "Renault Deny McLaren Data Charge" - which was remarkably similar.

#17 britishtrident

britishtrident
  • Member

  • 1,954 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 13 December 2009 - 10:55

For me the one thing that comes out the article the article is Mosley was reduced to being Todt's lap dog/attack dog.

#18 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 13 December 2009 - 10:58

What is it exactly about this article that you disapprove of? :confused:


The words Max and Mosley in the byline?

The sneering disregard for the opinions of any of his critics?

The wholesale anti-McLaren agenda?

The shrieking justification for draconian punishment?

Sure, Mosley may not have authored the ridiculous $100 million fine, but it was his dictatorial style which set the atmosphere.

Formula One is far better off now Mosley has crawled away.

I can't believe the newspapers are still giving the reptile the oxygen of publicity he so badly craves.

#19 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,687 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 13 December 2009 - 11:12

So, how do you know that Mosley was happy? How do you know that he didn't want a ban? If he was weakened already, as he says in the article, he wasn't any stronger by the time the Renault case was decided.


What was his excuse in ignoring Toyota's possession of Ferrari data then? Can't use the weakened argument there.

Advertisement

#20 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 13 December 2009 - 11:17

The words Max and Mosley in the byline?

The sneering disregard for the opinions of any of his critics?

The wholesale anti-McLaren agenda?

The shrieking justification for draconian punishment?

Sure, Mosley may not have authored the ridiculous $100 million fine, but it was his dictatorial style which set the atmosphere.

Formula One is far better off now Mosley has crawled away.

I can't believe the newspapers are still giving the reptile the oxygen of publicity he so badly craves.


Agree. I think he really wanted to be remembered as a great man, who did great things, now he's struggling to cope with the reality - the paddock saw him as an unpleasant old perv and were just glad to see the back of him.

The article is a rather pathetic attempt at self-justificatiion. Good to know that ultimately his vile reign ended with this sense of rejection and failure :up: .

#21 pRy

pRy
  • Member

  • 11,011 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 13 December 2009 - 11:18

Is this article an extract from a book he is writing?

#22 Muz Bee

Muz Bee
  • Member

  • 2,531 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 13 December 2009 - 11:19

What is it exactly about this article that you disapprove of? :confused:

Let me take the liberty of assuming potmotr's view on this is somewhat similar to mine.

1. McLaren and Ron Dennis got well punished for their crime. Raking over it is somewhat errr, unjust, if justice was served by a $100 million fine.

2. Max is yesterday's man and discovers that Ron is back - could that be his motivation for dragging it all out again

3. Believe it or not I and many others read over the tedious 200 odd pages of WMSC Appeal hearing transcripts and determined that the FIA (that is Max) had an "a priori" decision of GUILTY throughout. A kangaroo court is how I would describe it.

4. For their part, McLaren and Dennis never whinged about the finding or the punishment and Mosley wants to come out and effectively "reconvict" them.

Mosley doesn't behave like a professional barrister. This is a profession which, despite many criticisms (some rightly) that they are self serving, would never behave in such a despicable manner. He has (ab)used his position to get at his many enemies in a disgusting way. To bring his comments to this forum is almost dignifying them, as if it sheds some light on "Spygate". It doesn't - it simply demonstrates the sadly twisted mind of a has-been.


#23 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 13 December 2009 - 11:21

So, undersquare and potmotr, don't you find it in the least bit strange that FOTA was working on a deal that suited them and then backed out of after a meeting at a factory owned by a manufacturer? Especially since all of the major episodes of the breakaway saw the manufacturers take the most aggressive approach to the regulations?

What was his excuse in ignoring Toyota's possession of Ferrari data then? Can't use the weakened argument there.

It's pretty obvious Ferrari chose not to prosecute. They didn't consider Toyota to be a threat, and so didn't pursue legal action. But when McLaren, someone who could actually beat them in a straight fight came along, Ferrari raised all hell.

#24 BinaryDad

BinaryDad
  • Member

  • 1,017 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 December 2009 - 11:24

McLaren: accused of unlawfully acquiring Ferrari's technical data and using it to build their 2007 car.


Wow. When you gt it wrong, you REALLY get it wrong. They weren't accused of using the Ferrai IP to build the 2007 car, since the data was acquired well after it had been built. McLaren had offered numerous times to have the 2007 car checked over, but were refused. Mosely knew the 2007 car had nothing to do with Ferrari, and having the FIA verify that would have weakened the case against McLaren in terms of the punishment being handed out.

As Max pointed out, there was no concrete evidence that McLaren had actually used the Ferrari I.P. Just leaving it at that, meant he was able to urge the WMSC to re-open the case at a later date if new evidence came to light. Proving that they hadn't used the data for the 2007 car, could have possibly weakened the resolve of the WMSC into re-opening the case again which was not was Max wanted.

In fact, after the second hearing there was no concrete proof that the use of Ferrari I.P./data had gone beyond Alonso, de la Rosa and Coughlan. As Max himself said during the hearing, he didn't have to prove anything. He only had to show that it was possible that the data might have been seen by other people in the team. Compare this to the ruling in the Benneton TC/LC case where the software was found on the ECU to allow the use of these sort of systems. They were found guilty of a breach of the rules, but because they couldn't PROVE that it had been used, no punishment was given.

Double standards, eh? Gotta love 'em.

Renault: accused of having one of their drivers deliberately crashing to manipulate the outcome of the race.


I was referring to (as I actually say as much in my post) of Renault being in possession of McLaren's own technical diagrams in 2007. More specifically, it was related to the inverter suspension (J-damper) that gave the McLaren superior mechanical grip to everybody else.


#25 Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast
  • Paddock Club Host

  • 4,555 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 13 December 2009 - 11:24

So, undersquare and potmotr, don't you find it in the least bit strange that FOTA was working on a deal that suited them and then backed out of after a meeting at a factory owned by a manufacturer? Especially since all of the major episodes of the breakaway saw the manufacturers take the most aggressive approach to the regulations?

It's pretty obvious Ferrari chose not to prosecute. They didn't consider Toyota to be a threat, and so didn't pursue legal action. But when McLaren, someone who could actually beat them in a straight fight came along, Ferrari raised all hell.

So Mosley's WMSC was doing Ferrari's bidding? That's the implication.

#26 Muz Bee

Muz Bee
  • Member

  • 2,531 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 13 December 2009 - 11:26

McLaren: accused of unlawfully acquiring Ferrari's technical data and using it to build their 2007 car.
Renault: accused of having one of their drivers deliberately crashing to manipulate the outcome of the race.

Both of them are cases of cheating, but that's where the similarities end. It's like the difference between robbery and burglary and trying to pass them off as the same thing. Renault would not have been called before the WMSC on the same charges as McLaren.

Are you taking the piss or deliberately ignoring the obvious? Are there no punishment scales available between $100 Million and zero? :stoned:

Is F1 well served by having this LOSER restoke the embers of hatred two years on, and for that matter for you to drag it in front of us??? F1 has moved on - you and Max seem to want to relive it's darker chapters. :down:


#27 britishtrident

britishtrident
  • Member

  • 1,954 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 13 December 2009 - 11:27

I wonder at the timing, to me it has the feel of a diversionary tactic, perhaps Max expects the French court to find in favour of Flavio ? or is some story that won't show Max in a good light l about to break ?

#28 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 13 December 2009 - 11:31

So Mosley's WMSC was doing Ferrari's bidding? That's the implication.

Ferrari have been given special priveliges before - remember the very discreet technical veto that they were given years ago, and nothing was known about it until this year?

I don't know what information the Toyota guys said, but Ferrari have a lot of clout with the FIA. Given the sentiment towards Mosley, I'm surprised you didn't pick up on this sooner: if Ferrari said bow, the FIA might just do it.

Wow. When you gt it wrong, you REALLY get it wrong.

I simplified it. Intentionally. Because at the end of the day, that's what it boiled down to: McLaren using Ferrari data to build their 2007 car. Even if the basic car was completed before they acquired it, it wouldn't have been difficult for McLaren to integrate Ferrari's work into their constant car updates.

#29 w00dy

w00dy
  • Member

  • 341 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 13 December 2009 - 11:39

And this is the background to the emergence of a **** champion in 2008 - Lewis Hamilton. Well done.

#30 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,708 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 13 December 2009 - 11:40

There are no revelations in the article. You would hardly expect Mosley to be apologetic for any of the friction he has caused. This is the man afterall who threw away the rule book to reinstate Ferrari in the Malaysian GP in 99, and also the man who argued blindly that Alonso's quali penalty in Monza was justified. His judgement is entirley centred around who scratches his back (Todt) and who gets on his back (Dennis).

#31 learningtobelost

learningtobelost
  • Member

  • 690 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 13 December 2009 - 11:41

Once again Max iignores the real issues behind these cases and comments on the sensational parts.

Inconsistency. Toyota and Renault were both found in posession of large amounts of rival teams data (Ferrari and Mclaren respectively) but we're only given a slap on the wrist. Mclaren, for the same crime were being lobbied by the 'imaprtial' head of the sports governing body to be thrown out for two years. The only conclusion that can resonably be drawn from this is that Mclaren were a bigger target politically (whether that was from FIAT pressure or internal bias is anyones guess. I have my oppinions though!

Bias. "Although no one on the council believed them, we had to acquit. Concrete evidence of use by McLaren of the Ferrari information was simply not there". Comments like that make it sound like they had made their minds up before the court hearing, that sort of thing wouldn't stand in any REAL courtroom.

FOTA Breakaway. Once again max ignores the fact that it was his administration that let F1 get into the manufacturer megabucks situation that it was in and only acted at the last possible moment to correct it. He try's to portray himself as the downtrodden hero in the article, when in fact the reality of the situation is that he orchestrated the whole thing.

Courting the manufacturers into F1 would only lead to increaeced spending to gain performance over their rivals, he has admitted this himself previously. However if the bubble was to inevitably bust then why make dozens of higly expensive rule changes? KERS was introduced at the hight of the economic downturn, with at least 2 manufacturers already questioning their involvement in F1.

You can draw one of two conclusions from this:

1) Max was clueless, his head in the sand attitude piloted F1 to the brink of disaster.

2) Max knew exactly what he was doing, driving the manufacturers into incresed spending helped F1's profits sore. The economic dowturn came at the perfect time for max to drive costs further and hit the reset button on F1.

I don't think it's the first one ;)

#32 BinaryDad

BinaryDad
  • Member

  • 1,017 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 December 2009 - 11:42

I simplified it. Intentionally. Because at the end of the day, that's what it boiled down to: McLaren using Ferrari data to build their 2007 car. Even if the basic car was completed before they acquired it, it wouldn't have been difficult for McLaren to integrate Ferrari's work into their constant car updates.


Well, I see you and Max go by the same mantra then. You're just pulling supposition out of your batty hole.

It WOULD have been difficult. Just like the double diffuser, you can't just say "hey let's bolt that on" and run with it. That's not how it works. As I said, McLaren offered their car for inspection numerous times and Max Mosely refused, because he KNEW the 2007 car was not and could not be influenced by the Ferrari I.P. But then, that doesn't fit with your biased little view with no evidence so I guess you'll ignore that once again.





#33 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,708 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 13 December 2009 - 11:42

Ferrari have been given special priveliges before - remember the very discreet technical veto that they were given years ago, and nothing was known about it until this year?

I don't know what information the Toyota guys said, but Ferrari have a lot of clout with the FIA. Given the sentiment towards Mosley, I'm surprised you didn't pick up on this sooner: if Ferrari said bow, the FIA might just do it.


I simplified it. Intentionally. Because at the end of the day, that's what it boiled down to: McLaren using Ferrari data to build their 2007 car. Even if the basic car was completed before they acquired it, it wouldn't have been difficult for McLaren to integrate Ferrari's work into their constant car updates.


Nope. The real advanatge was in knowing what Ferrari were doing. You can't take bits of a Ferrari and stick them on a McLaren and expect them to work the same.

#34 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 13 December 2009 - 11:51

Well, I see you and Max go by the same mantra then. You're just pulling supposition out of your batty hole.

If the alternative means I have to judge a man as being guilty before I even know what he's supposedly done, then I'm quite happy pulling supposition out of my rear.

#35 BinaryDad

BinaryDad
  • Member

  • 1,017 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 December 2009 - 12:00

If the alternative means I have to judge a man as being guilty before I even know what he's supposedly done,


Isn't that exactly what you're doing though? You're SUPPOSING that McLaren used Ferrari I.P. on their 2007 car without any proof, or knowledge of exactly what was done with that data. You're judging somebody guilty of something based on...well..nothing as it happens.

There's no alternative here at all....you're doing exactly what you claim to be NOT doing. You and Max seem to make good bed fellows indeed!





#36 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 13 December 2009 - 12:18

So, undersquare and potmotr, don't you find it in the least bit strange that FOTA was working on a deal that suited them and then backed out of after a meeting at a factory owned by a manufacturer? Especially since all of the major episodes of the breakaway saw the manufacturers take the most aggressive approach to the regulations?

It's pretty obvious Ferrari chose not to prosecute. They didn't consider Toyota to be a threat, and so didn't pursue legal action. But when McLaren, someone who could actually beat them in a straight fight came along, Ferrari raised all hell.


Well I'm not holding FOTA or Ferrari up as paragons of virtue. Some stories don't have a good guy. But the whole point of a Governing Body is that teams are competitive and just want to drive cars round in circles against each other. As for the manufacturers, well once we've seen Merc buy Chrysler, Ford buy and sell Jaguar, and Honda try to use F1 to sell a car called "Civic", then we know they're capable of cockups on any scale you can think of :lol: .

I'ts the governing body that's supposed to run the series. But in a fair and impartial way.

Meanwhile if I know anything at all it's that Max is as much a liar as anyone in F1, I wouldn't take anything from that article on trust.

#37 Sausage

Sausage
  • Member

  • 1,806 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 13 December 2009 - 12:21

Max is the ultimate words-manipulator. I'll never believe anything coming out of his mouth or flowing out of his pen. He spins so much, he would be a table tennis master

#38 R2D2

R2D2
  • Member

  • 780 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 13 December 2009 - 13:17

Quite a while ago I reached the point where I don't care what Max Mosley says or thinks.

#39 Max!

Max!
  • Member

  • 505 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 13 December 2009 - 13:27

So why do you all think McLaren didn´t go to a higher court? Because they knew this was a light sentence. The shareholders in McLaren would never have accepted a large fine if there was any chance to get it lowered by appealing it.

Advertisement

#40 Stuko

Stuko
  • Member

  • 565 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 13 December 2009 - 13:54

Well, I see you and Max go by the same mantra then. You're just pulling supposition out of your batty hole.

It WOULD have been difficult. Just like the double diffuser, you can't just say "hey let's bolt that on" and run with it. That's not how it works. As I said, McLaren offered their car for inspection numerous times and Max Mosely refused, because he KNEW the 2007 car was not and could not be influenced by the Ferrari I.P. But then, that doesn't fit with your biased little view with no evidence so I guess you'll ignore that once again.



What Max says is not 2007 development, but 2008 development (Lewis WDC):

"The most appropriate one was to exclude them from the championship. But there was also 2008 to consider. They had had this information in the crucial April to July period during which the following year's car takes shape. They would have had the benefit of the combined knowledge of McLaren and Ferrari in developing their 2008 car. "

"Despite the large sum involved, McLaren knew they had got off lightly, particularly after checks on the 2008 car revealed further devastating evidence. One email exchange between engineers responsible for the 2007 and 2008 cars asked whether information had come "from our mole" at Ferrari. "




#41 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 13 December 2009 - 14:06

What Max says is not 2007 development, but 2008 development (Lewis WDC):

"The most appropriate one was to exclude them from the championship. But there was also 2008 to consider. They had had this information in the crucial April to July period during which the following year's car takes shape. They would have had the benefit of the combined knowledge of McLaren and Ferrari in developing their 2008 car. "

"Despite the large sum involved, McLaren knew they had got off lightly, particularly after checks on the 2008 car revealed further devastating evidence. One email exchange between engineers responsible for the 2007 and 2008 cars asked whether information had come "from our mole" at Ferrari. "


You're quoting what Max wrote as evidence? :confused:

You seem blissfully unaware that Max was trying to get a new hearing and penalty (ban) in February 08 for things they had already been punished for. That's how biased he was. Well, not so much biased as tryiing to get Ron out of F1 irrespective of anything.

#42 EVO2

EVO2
  • Member

  • 754 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 13 December 2009 - 14:07

The very fact that the WMSC over ruled Moseley's demand for a two year ban proves that his determination to "get Ron Dennis" at any cost was unprincipled and vindictive.

How Renault were allowed to get off unscathed rather than be given a similar $100m fine is further proof of favouritism.

#43 Stuko

Stuko
  • Member

  • 565 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 13 December 2009 - 14:15

You're quoting what Max wrote as evidence? :confused:


I read it´s imposible to apply Ferrari knowledge in 2007 car and i´m just quoting what he says. Not 2007 but 2008 development.
If what he says is an evidende or not is another issue, a judge issue i´m afraid, not me, not you.... Despite of this, i don´t trust Max.

Edited by Stuko, 13 December 2009 - 14:16.


#44 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 13 December 2009 - 14:17

How Renault were allowed to get off unscathed rather than be given a similar $100m fine is further proof of favouritism.


I always thought Max was making a statement with the Renault non-punishment, about his own power and to rub Ron's nose in it.

#45 JPW

JPW
  • Member

  • 3,335 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 13 December 2009 - 14:20

LOL good ole Max, an interesting read and nice to see that scandalous McLaren behaviour of 2007 revisited :up:

No surprise though and no surprise that it's The Telegraph that (once again) gives him a platform to speak out.
Guess Max feels he still has a bit of an axe to grind with some of the liars and cheaters in F1 such as McLaren, Ronzo, Briatore and FOTA. It might also be a prelude to an autobiography being published somewhere at the start of next season.

BTW wouldn't be surprised at all if more installments of "Max' truth" are to follow, one dealing with Spankgate and those (formerly) in F1 connected.  ;)

#46 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 13 December 2009 - 14:23

I read it´s imposible to apply Ferrari knowledge in 2007 car and i´m just quoting what he says. Not 2007 but 2008 development.
If what he says is an evidende or not is another issue, a judge issue i´m afraid, not me, not you.... Despite of this, i don´t trust Max.


Max said Hamilton's wdc would have been tainted, if he'd won, in 07. He was forced to fall back to 08 when the absurdity of the 07 "silver Ferrari" accusation was pointed out, but both Max and Ferrari were slinging whatever mud they could get away with, 07 and 08.

#47 BinaryDad

BinaryDad
  • Member

  • 1,017 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 December 2009 - 14:24

What Max says is not 2007 development, but 2008 development (Lewis WDC):


I understand this. The point from Max about the 2008 development of the car was, unfortunately, quite a valid one. You had to be a blind fan not to be disappointed at the admission from McLaren regarding certain aspects of their 2008 car. It's not actually Max that I'm jumping on about the 2007 car.

It's Captain Tightpants who keeps on saying that the 2007 car was base don the Ferrari I.P. Somebody who has admitted on this very thread that he'll happily make things up to justify his opinions.


#48 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,383 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 13 December 2009 - 14:35

Is there any information in the article that we didn't knew before?

No.

So who was eager to that article to get published for what purpose? One could take it as self-justification from Mosley. If so, what are his connections to the newspaper? But then the whole exercise was pointless anyway, since it sheds bad light on him. All knew and agreed cost reductions had to be done, everybody agreed, but nothing was done. And of course it's all the others fault.. Funny that, since the rule in the end has to be set by the FiA. And his major concern in all of this seemed to be the number of cars on the grid, not the quality of the races. Besides he didn't foresaw the forming of FOSA as a consequence of the cost cutting process, which means one power being more interested in their own vested interests, instead of the racing itself. Good job. Max Mosley! Not.

If the point of his story is something else, then what? Since he focuses so much on McLaren and Ferrari, what't the scoop there? An after office attempt to discredit Ron and Luca?

Edited by HP, 13 December 2009 - 14:38.


#49 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 927 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 13 December 2009 - 14:44

This sums up the whole affair:

Although no one on the council believed them, we had to acquit. Concrete evidence of use by McLaren of the Ferrari information was simply not there. Without it, McLaren would have won an appeal to the FIA International Court of Appeal (ICA).
Ferrari were understandably furious. I even had a lengthy call from Fiat chief executive Sergio Marchionne, who is someone to be taken seriously. All I could do was say that without evidence, we could not convict, however much we might believe them to be guilty.



Mosley just "knew" that they were guilty - even though there was no evidence of it.

#50 Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast
  • Paddock Club Host

  • 4,555 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 13 December 2009 - 14:51

LOL good ole Max, an interesting read and nice to see that scandalous McLaren behaviour of 2007 revisited :up:

No surprise though and no surprise that it's The Telegraph that (once again) gives him a platform to speak out.
Guess Max feels he still has a bit of an axe to grind with some of the liars and cheaters in F1 such as McLaren, Ronzo, Briatore and FOTA. It might also be a prelude to an autobiography being published somewhere at the start of next season.

BTW wouldn't be surprised at all if more installments of "Max' truth" are to follow, one dealing with Spankgate and those (formerly) in F1 connected. ;)


Keep reading The Telegraph for more excerpts from "The Mosley Diaries"*.

Next week: "Robert Mugabe: the inside story on the 'election' and the British governments attempts to assassinate me"

Further news: "Mosley said: “What he’s saying is that he (Briatore) was not given a proper trial, but he declined to turn up and declined to appeal. The fact is he knew damn well he was guilty. And so he goes to a French court, makes all sorts of allegations and tries to distract everybody’s attention.”
So if the accused doesn't appear at their 'trial' and doesn't appeal via the same system, he must be guilty and there's no need for due process, eh Max? Or maybe Briatore knew he would be found guilty, which is not the same thing?



*He rejected the publisher's recommendation "Max Mosley: My Part in My Downfall".