Of course there are grey areas, and degrees of penalties - you seem to see only light, no black, I also might add. A penalty of any kind doesn't mean "extinction". But I also want to add this: "The World Motor Sport Council considers Renault F1's breaches relating to the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix to be of unparalleled severity."
This was worse than ANYTHING - BAR fuel cell, Liegate, Spygate, MSc punting Villeneuve, ANYTHING. And there was NO penalty of any kind. They will only get a penalty "if Renault F1 is found guilty of a comparable breach" - which might be tough, since this one was of "unparalleled severity". They need to crash atleast one car...
I agree. This was more serious than Spygate. What we are talking about here is the degree of punishment. When McLaren was handed its punishment there was a different financial climate. McLaren's fine was manageable, as McLaren stated at the time.
Any kind of fine at the same level as McLaren's would cause Renault France to leave F1. It is in no kind of financial position to survive that kind of punishment. It is a fact of life that if Renault France pull out of F1 then Mecachrome Motorsports would probably fold. That was what I meant by extinction. Renault F1 would probably find another buyer. Renault has been rumoured to be wanting to get out of F1 team ownership for a while. Perhaps that was the cause of the rift between Flav and Renault France.
I am in the other camp to a black and white punishment. I believe that the punishment is proportionate to what Renault France could afford. The FIA stated that if Renault had not taken action then it would have levied a permanent ban from F1.
It is also worth pointing out that McLaren contested the FIA's action at its hearing. Renault did not fight the action. Leniency us usually given for a guilty plea.
I agree with what many are saying here. On the face of it there is a disparity between the punishments handed out for Crashgate and Spygate. However, on deeper examination the penalty is balanced imo.