Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Aerolab, Caterham and Force India


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#1 just me again

just me again
  • Member

  • 1,127 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 22 March 2012 - 07:17

Aerolab has used data from Force India when working on Team Lotus ( now Caterham ) cars. But the Importance of this is played differently.

Autosport Downplay the incident

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/98236

P i t p a s s on the other hand "upplay" the incident.

http://www.pitpass.c...ectual-property

Wich is the most correct wiew ?, and how do other news outlets spin the story.

If they get the hammer like McLaren, what should the penalty be.

Bjørn

Advertisement

#2 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,104 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 22 March 2012 - 08:13

There shouldn't be any penalty to Caterham. But Mallaya should be banned for putting F1 in disrepute with his constant delays of payments to all and sundry suppliers.

#3 zack1994

zack1994
  • Member

  • 2,368 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 22 March 2012 - 08:49

MikeGascoyne suggest that @PeterDWindsor reads the judgement before writing factually incorrect headlines. All claims against me were dismissed


#4 mechadaniel

mechadaniel
  • Member

  • 729 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 22 March 2012 - 08:49

P i t p a s s on the other hand "upplay" the incident.

http://www.pitpass.c...ectual-property

Wich is the most correct wiew ?, and how do other news outlets spin the story.


Wow, Pitpass is still going?

That is the Force India press release copy and pasted, chances are "other news outlets" will actually write what happened instead :)

#5 hippie

hippie
  • Member

  • 286 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 22 March 2012 - 08:52

Pitpass simply recycled Force India's press release.

Joe Saward adds some details and analysis to that press realase.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Arnold held that Aerolab’s CAD designers had misused certain of Force India’s confidential information as a means of taking a short cut to produce a wind tunnel model which could begin to be used for testing as soon as possible. He further held that a small number of the relevant wind tunnel model components had found their way as full size components into the car which Caterham F1 Team (then racing under the name of Team Lotus) had raced at the beginning of the 2010 season.

The Judge held that neither Mr Gascoyne or Caterham F1 Team were liable for breach of confidence.

With regard to Aerolab/FondTech, the Judge ordered that they pay compensation to Force India in the sum of €25,000 whilst ordering Force India to pay Aerolab €846,230 in respect of the debt claim.


In a separate blog article Saward also tells about the background that led to this court case.

#6 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 22 March 2012 - 08:56

Crux of the matter is the nature of IP? GB and Europe has different attitude. In most cases IP belongs to those who made idea into tangible form in whatever manner that might be. Never the less, strange that FI owns IP of what Aerolab does.


So what is the business of Aerolab? What is the structure between FI and Aerolab? Is it like FI designs and Aerolab make scale models, put them in their tunnel and bring the data back to FI? Is Aerolab not implementing any intellectual creation in terms of improving aerodynamic performance of FI's design? I assume at the very point when Aerolab proposes improvement to FI then the IP of those is owned by Aerolab, and vis a vis to FI. Guess reading the wind and making finite analysis is a IP objective that is fully owned by the one who does the work, in this case Aerolab???

Don't really know what those unpaid fee make influence on IP-transfer. Aerolab has contract which says in case IP belongs to them? ....?

Edited by One, 22 March 2012 - 08:59.


#7 Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast
  • Member

  • 4,420 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 22 March 2012 - 09:01

The text of the judgement may be found here: http://www.bailii.or...h/2012/616.html

#8 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,569 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 22 March 2012 - 09:05

The text of the judgement may be found here: http://www.bailii.or...h/2012/616.html

Anyone care to make a tl;dr out of this?

Edited by dau, 22 March 2012 - 09:05.


#9 Racer Joe

Racer Joe
  • Member

  • 2,881 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 22 March 2012 - 09:29

There shouldn't be any penalty to Caterham. But Mallaya should be banned for putting F1 in disrepute with his constant delays of payments to all and sundry suppliers.


Couldn't agree more.

Force India should pay up their debt first. Given that a UK High Court has gone through the merit of the case and deliver its judgement I think I can safely assume that FI was trying to get out of paying up.


#10 just me again

just me again
  • Member

  • 1,127 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 22 March 2012 - 09:32

From Paras 196 of http://www.bailii.or...h/2012/616.html


"As a result of the aerodynamic development described above, many of the aerodynamic parts of the initial Lotus model were replaced by differently designed parts during that period. Force India makes no complaint in respect of the replacement parts. It is common ground, however, that certain of the initial parts which are the subject of complaint survived with either no or few changes, and that full sized equivalents of those parts were incorporated into the Lotus car which raced in at least the first few races of the F1 2010 season. These are the front part of the front wing turning vane, the front wing mainplane and flap profiles, the vortex generator, the rear wing central section and assembly, rear brake duct lower element and the rear view mirror. "

This are the parts wich was copied in Full size on the Lotus Car. I think it ought to have some form of consequence. Maybe removing them from the results for the first half of 2010 with no money penalty.

I agree that Force India properbly only reported the copying because they had fallen out with Aerolab and owed them money. Force India did not care that Team Lotus has copied some small parts.

Bjørn

#11 mechadaniel

mechadaniel
  • Member

  • 729 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 22 March 2012 - 09:55

Anyone care to make a tl;dr out of this?


Well reading it will wipe out my lunchbreak :)

There are some tasty titbits, like how much Force India pay Mclaren


#12 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 22 March 2012 - 10:36

From Paras 196 of http://www.bailii.or...h/2012/616.html


"As a result of the aerodynamic development described above, many of the aerodynamic parts of the initial Lotus model were replaced by differently designed parts during that period. Force India makes no complaint in respect of the replacement parts. It is common ground, however, that certain of the initial parts which are the subject of complaint survived with either no or few changes, and that full sized equivalents of those parts were incorporated into the Lotus car which raced in at least the first few races of the F1 2010 season. These are the front part of the front wing turning vane, the front wing mainplane and flap profiles, the vortex generator, the rear wing central section and assembly, rear brake duct lower element and the rear view mirror. "


I do not understand the process.

1. FI give commission to work out aerodynamic of their racingcar.
2. FI delivers Aerolab design of the car (IP FI)
3. Aerolab delivers competent work. (analysis IP Aerolab on FI design)
4. FI do not pay the agreed costs.
5. Aerolab turns down business relationships with FI.

I thought that IP looks at the bigger picture, the whole thing. complete product, for which in this case a complete race car. If the whole phylosophy of aero is set up differently, then the car's IP wholy belongs to Lotus Racing... Could imagine those a bit FI felt a bit, but hey FI did not pay close to 850000, that is a huge breachof contract. I guess it is worse.

#13 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,161 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 22 March 2012 - 11:02

I can't see what the FIA would want to do about it. There was some very minor copying of IP by Aerolab to construct Lotus' cars, but they have already been fined for it and the rest of the judgement has gone against Force India. It's effectively over now, no need for the FIA to want to involve themselves with a legal dispute.

#14 TennisUK

TennisUK
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 22 March 2012 - 20:42

The idea that the FIA would be in the slightest interested in this seems pretty absurd given that Renault recieved essentially no punishment for doing a far far worse thing with Mclaren IP a couple of years back. And of course Aerolab is an external agency - how would Caterham (nee Lotus) have been at fault if it was their supplier doing the dirty?

Supposedly Force India turned down a £250K settlement too which would have avoided the €800K plus however many millions in legal fees...

#15 heidegg33

heidegg33
  • Member

  • 122 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 March 2012 - 00:41

Joe Saward adds some details and analysis to that press realase.
In a separate blog article Saward also tells about the background that led to this court case.


Is this Joe Saward, board member for Carterham? Doesn't even feel the need to declare this conflict of interest in his piece. Ridiculous.

#16 hippie

hippie
  • Member

  • 286 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 23 March 2012 - 02:57

Is this Joe Saward, board member for Carterham? Doesn't even feel the need to declare this conflict of interest in his piece. Ridiculous.

Force India's press release was an incredible effort to spin bad news into good, but Saward's blog article appears to me as informative, impartial and unbiased. What's your problem with it?

If the job at Caterham has had any effect on Saward's writing, it's probably made Saward more careful not to air his own opinions as openly as before. That's actually a bit of a shame, since I quite like to read about his informed opinions, and you'd normally expect to find opinion pieces in a personal blog.

#17 MaxisOne

MaxisOne
  • Member

  • 1,212 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 March 2012 - 04:34

Force India's press release was an incredible effort to spin bad news into good, but Saward's blog article appears to me as informative, impartial and unbiased. What's your problem with it?

If the job at Caterham has had any effect on Saward's writing, it's probably made Saward more careful not to air his own opinions as openly as before. That's actually a bit of a shame, since I quite like to read about his informed opinions, and you'd normally expect to find opinion pieces in a personal blog.



Let me preface this by saying im quite aware that this is his blog and is therefore not subject to stringent journalistic rules. However, Mr. Saward always markets himself as one of the untouchable insiders whos journalistic excellence speaks for itself and is immune to fault. To the point of being rude and feigning offence to the people who, with good reason calls his integrity into question. He then grandstands on his soapbox about why does he bother with blogging when he gets the slightest criticism. :rolleyes:

Im sure you can tell i am no fan of Joe Saward .. neither am i a fan of any of the two parties he is discussing in his article.

The subject matter may appear to be ok but it is tainted by lack of disclosure. That's whats wrong with it. He is one of the first to point fingers in regards to lack of transparency in F1. It would do him some good to actually excercise that in his blog.

Oh and by the way .. .all you need to do is take a look at the comments section. The defensive attitude i was saying he has when questioned/criticised is clearly on display at the end of the article.

#18 hippie

hippie
  • Member

  • 286 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:08

Let me preface this by saying im quite aware that this is his blog and is therefore not subject to stringent journalistic rules. However, Mr. Saward always markets himself as one of the untouchable insiders whos journalistic excellence speaks for itself and is immune to fault. To the point of being rude and feigning offence to the people who, with good reason calls his integrity into question. He then grandstands on his soapbox about why does he bother with blogging when he gets the slightest criticism. :rolleyes:

Im sure you can tell i am no fan of Joe Saward .. neither am i a fan of any of the two parties he is discussing in his article.

The subject matter may appear to be ok but it is tainted by lack of disclosure. That's whats wrong with it. He is one of the first to point fingers in regards to lack of transparency in F1. It would do him some good to actually excercise that in his blog.

Oh and by the way .. .all you need to do is take a look at the comments section. The defensive attitude i was saying he has when questioned/criticised is clearly on display at the end of the article.


What kind of disclosure are you looking for? In the Blog rules section of his blog Saward writes:

In the interests of full disclosure, Joe is a non-executive director of Caterham Cars Group Ltd. It is an advisory role and he is not involved in the operations or management of the F1 team.

That seems pretty open and straightforward to me.

#19 Vickyy

Vickyy
  • Member

  • 189 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:15

What kind of disclosure are you looking for? In the Blog rules section of his blog Saward writes:

That seems pretty open and straightforward to me.

So you mean, if I am a regular reader, I should first visit his Blog rules on daily basis?
I just love the way he talks of transparency.

Advertisement

#20 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:19

Mallaya should be banned for putting F1 in disrepute with his constant delays of payments to all and sundry suppliers.


WTF has that got to do with you Mr Slander? :lol:


#21 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,161 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:26

So you mean, if I am a regular reader, I should first visit his Blog rules on daily basis?
I just love the way he talks of transparency.


If you forget who he is every time you visit then yes. Otherwise, once you know he's a director of Caterham you don't need to be told about it again.

#22 Vickyy

Vickyy
  • Member

  • 189 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:34

If you forget who he is every time you visit then yes. Otherwise, once you know he's a director of Caterham you don't need to be told about it again.

As many commented over there, he should have published the news of his inclusion in Caterham advisory role like any other news, which absolutely make sense to me.
And here commence the endless debate of blogger or journalist.


#23 alg7_munif

alg7_munif
  • Member

  • 1,616 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:50

Ferrari dossier = bringing the sport into disrepute.

CAD data?

#24 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,104 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 23 March 2012 - 12:38

WTF has that got to do with you Mr Slander? :lol:


I will give you that he has probably paid 'some' of his suppliers on time. However, there are plenty stories out and about of him not being dilligent in paying is bills in a timely manner. This just being the latest example. How would YOU like to be owed more than 700,000 GBP for more than six months?

#25 MaxisOne

MaxisOne
  • Member

  • 1,212 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 March 2012 - 13:41

What kind of disclosure are you looking for? In the Blog rules section of his blog Saward writes:

That seems pretty open and straightforward to me.


The blog rules was modified after the uproar in question.

Additionally, the disclosure i was looking for (as a reasonable person who doesnt visit the blog rules EVERY TIME i visit the site) is a standard disclosure snippet either at the beginning or the end of the story in question.

Does that seem like an unreasonable request to you?

#26 Felix

Felix
  • Member

  • 707 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 23 March 2012 - 14:08

I will give you that he has probably paid 'some' of his suppliers on time. However, there are plenty stories out and about of him not being dilligent in paying is bills in a timely manner. This just being the latest example. How would YOU like to be owed more than 700,000 GBP for more than six months?


How would YOU like your IP - which you paid 700 000 GBP for - ending up on another car?

#27 Vickyy

Vickyy
  • Member

  • 189 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 23 March 2012 - 14:11

How would YOU like your IP - which you paid 700 000 GBP for - ending up on another car?

:up:

#28 OfficeLinebacker

OfficeLinebacker
  • Member

  • 14,019 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 23 March 2012 - 14:35

How would YOU like your IP - which you paid 700 000 GBP for - ending up on another car?

But Mallya didn't actually pay for it...or are you talking about something else?

#29 Felix

Felix
  • Member

  • 707 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 23 March 2012 - 14:39

But Mallya didn't actually pay for it...or are you talking about something else?


I am talking principle - and he will pay once the legalities are sorted: the money was sitting in an escrow account awaiting the court case


#30 wrighty

wrighty
  • Member

  • 3,614 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 23 March 2012 - 14:42

But Mallya didn't actually pay for it...or are you talking about something else?


that's one of the contentious parts of this matter that doesn't get much of an airing....at which point does the data become Force India's data? They've supplied parts but then don't appear to have paid for the service of analysing those parts, so theory says that the parts are theirs but the data isn't until they 'buy' it, but then again the data doesn't exist without the parts blah blah.
For me this is a cautionary tale about how not paying your bills can leave you in a sticky situation....morally FI are probably in the right but if they haven't paid for the services then so are Aerolab, and as has been mentioned already, they are unable to unlearn what they've learnt.

Tough sh1t FI i'm afraid, pay your bills.

#31 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,104 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 23 March 2012 - 15:40

How would YOU like your IP - which you paid 700 000 GBP for - ending up on another car?



Try follow the timeline here:

1) Aerolab make work for FI
2) FI do not pay
3) Aerolab asks repeatedly for payment
4) In the end Aerolab cancels contract for further work and take FI for collection
.
.
5) Caterham (in Lotus guise) contracts aerolab to do aero work
6) A picture of a windtunnel model surfaces
7) FI recognises parts that was also on the FI wind tunnel model
.
.
8) FI sues Aerolab for IP infringement
.
.
9) Judge rules: FI, pay your bill (in excess of 700,000) now as well as costs. Aerolab, give FI a discount of 25,000 on the bill.


Sorry, Felix, but that tells me that FI is 'most' in the wrong. And we happen to know this isn't the first instance where this has happened.

#32 hippie

hippie
  • Member

  • 286 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 23 March 2012 - 15:59

The blog rules was modified after the uproar in question.

Additionally, the disclosure i was looking for (as a reasonable person who doesnt visit the blog rules EVERY TIME i visit the site) is a standard disclosure snippet either at the beginning or the end of the story in question.

Does that seem like an unreasonable request to you?

No. But it's Saward's blog, so he gets to decide what he writes there.

I'm just happy that a well-informed F1 journalist like Saward bothers to write these blog articles. For me, his blog is one of the best sources of information about what goes on in the F1 world. From time to time he reveals some behind-the-scenes scoops before other reporters, and he often adds useful extra information to misleading and one-sided press releases -- like the one Force India published.

#33 MaxisOne

MaxisOne
  • Member

  • 1,212 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 24 March 2012 - 01:16

No. But it's Saward's blog, so he gets to decide what he writes there.

I'm just happy that a well-informed F1 journalist like Saward bothers to write these blog articles. For me, his blog is one of the best sources of information about what goes on in the F1 world. From time to time he reveals some behind-the-scenes scoops before other reporters, and he often adds useful extra information to misleading and one-sided press releases -- like the one Force India published.



Thats exactly the snobbery that makes me not even bother. Just because its his blog does not excuse him from covering his bases. His blog is read by enthusiasts who would like to know that although he is writing articles about a particular party, the party he is a member of is an opposing party.

Its a simple act of transparency and the mere fact that he doesnt have the balls to say im sorry i should have disclosed i was a director of the opposing party up front leaves one to question his integrity and rightly so.

If you think this is no big deal then we simply agree to disagree but the mere fact that he cannot acknowledge this fundamental aspect of writing does it for me in regards to my poor regard to his imagined journalistic integrity.

I bet you James Allen would not have pulled the same stunt.

We will simply have to agree to disagree on this principle.

Edited by MaxisOne, 24 March 2012 - 01:17.


#34 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,739 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 24 March 2012 - 02:20

makes the 100million macca ferrari thing seem quite overblown now, doesnt it ?

#35 hippie

hippie
  • Member

  • 286 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 27 March 2012 - 09:15

Pitpass.com originally copy-pasted Force India's tendentious press release, but they have recovered their journalistic integrity in the lastest Pitpass.com article: Do Lawyers Run Formula One?

#36 Red17

Red17
  • Member

  • 3,386 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 27 March 2012 - 10:58

Pitpass.com originally copy-pasted Force India's tendentious press release, but they have recovered their journalistic integrity in the lastest Pitpass.com article: Do Lawyers Run Formula One?

That's a bit of an agressive article. The author basically says FI are idiots for thinking the FIA will do anything and for not taking the Aerolab settlement he even goes back to Jordan. And just like in previous «We won! Woot!» rulings they winners are apealing.

#37 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 27 March 2012 - 11:17

Confusing, that is how it is, that is my personnal impression about Force India. Not to mention that the team's on track result is falling now, the image of the team is falling .... I guess Force india must now concentrate on track action at least, say the least to prove their worth. I mean on the wings of Force india we have two masive talent, Di Rista and Hulk...

Besides... Oh well, what do we know about it? nowthe situation is spinning around and the Force India is seeking damage to a journalist who said that the Force India is having financial difficulty, which might have been right.


Stay away from Force India,...

Edited by One, 27 March 2012 - 11:18.


#38 jals99

jals99
  • Member

  • 778 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 27 March 2012 - 14:24

Fernandes spy row: Caterham could be kicked out of F1 in new scandal
Force India deputy team principal Bob Fernley said:

‘If nothing is now done, that means a free-for-all in the paddock. If nothing is done, could McLaren claim their $100million back? If the FIA do sanction against Caterham, it could cost them tens of millions.’

http://www.dailymail...F1-spy-row.html


#39 teejay

teejay
  • Member

  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 27 March 2012 - 14:31

Makes you realise just how vindictive the McLaren case was.

Advertisement

#40 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 27 March 2012 - 15:05

Move on, guys, especially FI, it is kind of annoying that there are so much noise about the team just finished at the back of the pack by the team that are falling.

#41 Mr Plug

Mr Plug
  • Member

  • 126 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 27 March 2012 - 15:22

Fernandes spy row: Caterham could be kicked out of F1 in new scandal
Force India deputy team principal Bob Fernley said:
http://www.dailymail...F1-spy-row.html


You just have to laugh at the Daily Mail article......"Rival team Marussia are concerned that Caterham gained an unfair advantage when they both entered Formula One that year.

That'll be the shower who, when they first started, said that their CFD was so clever, they didn't NEED wind tunnels.......so what are they complaining about? In the 'good old days', certain designers were known to break into garages overnight with cameras and sketch books, and certain teams were known to anticipate this by attaching all sorts of odd things to chassis! Nowadays, the first thing that anyone does is to make an appointment with Messrs Sue, Grabbitte and Runne. Sheesh!

#42 Sumant

Sumant
  • Member

  • 49 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 27 March 2012 - 15:52

More info on the case in yesterday's GPWeek magazine
http://mag.gpweek.com/#folio=33

#43 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,201 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 27 March 2012 - 16:43

Hmmm, I do have to ask. What did Force India lose from this? As far as I can see, nothing. Their 2009 and 2010 championship positions would not have been affected. It's not comparable to spygate in 2007 which could have changed the complexity of the championship.

What did Caterham gain? If the high court says not much, then I guess we have to believe that. Let's be frank here, they can't have gained that much: http://en.wikipedia....Prix#Qualifying

18. Jaime Alguersuari (Toro Rosso) - 1:57.071
19. Timo Glock (Virgin) - 1:59.728
20. Jarno Trulli (Lotus) - 1:59.852
21. Heikki Kovalainen (Lotus) - 2:00.313
22. Lucas di Grassi (Virgin) - 2:00.587
23. Bruno Senna (HRT) - 2:03.204
24. Karun Chandhok (HRT) - 2:04.904

The Force India's that day had 1:55.213 and 1:55.628 in Qualifying, so Lotus were 4.5 seconds slower than them. Surely if Lotus copied anything, they would have been much, much closer to the mid-pack?

#44 hippie

hippie
  • Member

  • 286 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 27 March 2012 - 17:39

The Star reports that Force India and Marussia urge the FIA to investigate whether the copyright breach in Lotus Racing's 2010 car has infringed the FIA’s Sporting Code:

Force India and Marussia believe this is a basic infringement of the FIA’s Sporting Code, pertinently Article 151c which refers to ‘any fraudulent conduct or act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally’.

That is an interesting piece of information, especially the quoted wording of the Article 151c. Surely "fraudulent conduct" and "prejudicial act" suppose an intentional and deliberate act of wrongdoing. However, I'm not sure how Force India could possibly convince the FIA that the copyright breach was intentional on the part of Mike Gascoyne and Caterham, when they were unable to prove that in the High Court.

#45 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,260 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 27 March 2012 - 18:09

Hmmm, I do have to ask. What did Force India lose from this? As far as I can see, nothing. Their 2009 and 2010 championship positions would not have been affected. It's not comparable to spygate in 2007 which could have changed the complexity of the championship.

What did Caterham gain? If the high court says not much, then I guess we have to believe that. Let's be frank here, they can't have gained that much: http://en.wikipedia....Prix#Qualifying

18. Jaime Alguersuari (Toro Rosso) - 1:57.071
19. Timo Glock (Virgin) - 1:59.728
20. Jarno Trulli (Lotus) - 1:59.852
21. Heikki Kovalainen (Lotus) - 2:00.313
22. Lucas di Grassi (Virgin) - 2:00.587
23. Bruno Senna (HRT) - 2:03.204
24. Karun Chandhok (HRT) - 2:04.904

The Force India's that day had 1:55.213 and 1:55.628 in Qualifying, so Lotus were 4.5 seconds slower than them. Surely if Lotus copied anything, they would have been much, much closer to the mid-pack?


But couldn't you make the argument they'd be closer to Virgin/HRT territory withou the 'head start' ?

#46 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,201 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 28 March 2012 - 11:29

But couldn't you make the argument they'd be closer to Virgin/HRT territory withou the 'head start' ?

True. I'm not sure what FIA could do though, they can't remove points from them seeing as they haven't scored any, unless they stripped all prize money anyway from them which would bankrupt them. It'd just be a hefty fine.

Also, why have Marussia/Virgin only just raised this now, and not during the 2010 season? Why raise it now, and not then? :confused:

#47 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,260 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 28 March 2012 - 11:43

Well you have a verdict now.

#48 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,569 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 28 March 2012 - 14:24

Hmmm, I do have to ask. What did Force India lose from this? As far as I can see, nothing. Their 2009 and 2010 championship positions would not have been affected. It's not comparable to spygate in 2007 which could have changed the complexity of the championship.

What did Caterham gain? If the high court says not much, then I guess we have to believe that. Let's be frank here, they can't have gained that much: http://en.wikipedia....Prix#Qualifying

18. Jaime Alguersuari (Toro Rosso) - 1:57.071
19. Timo Glock (Virgin) - 1:59.728
20. Jarno Trulli (Lotus) - 1:59.852
21. Heikki Kovalainen (Lotus) - 2:00.313
22. Lucas di Grassi (Virgin) - 2:00.587
23. Bruno Senna (HRT) - 2:03.204
24. Karun Chandhok (HRT) - 2:04.904

The Force India's that day had 1:55.213 and 1:55.628 in Qualifying, so Lotus were 4.5 seconds slower than them. Surely if Lotus copied anything, they would have been much, much closer to the mid-pack?

I don't think that's the point though. It's just about the alleged use of FI's IP for their own car, not about whether they did so successfully or not. That's how i understand it at least. This "Schedule 3" FI mentions mandates that a constructor has to own the IP of their cars and can not use parts designed or manufactured by other F1 constructors, with the exception of engines, gearboxes, safety equipment etc.

So if a team would use another team's IP on their car, they would basically be in breach of the Concorde Agreement and would probably lose all rights given to them in the CA, including their share of TV revenues. With that share then being distributed between the rest of the teams i guess, meaning more money for everyone. I think that's what FI are going for.

There's also the "bringing the sport into disrepute" thing FIA used against McLaren and Renault, but i guess it would be hard to prove intent by Lotus Racing, when it already looks more like negligence by Aerolab.

#49 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 20,161 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 29 March 2012 - 17:01

Force India faces the (untrained) eye of the storm

Subscribers only
Very interesting reading

#50 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,104 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 29 March 2012 - 17:12

It seems Rencken is as blinkered as the rest of the F1 community. I am pretty certain that the judge know the law and applied it in a correct manner. Rencken implies that he didn't.