Its far far safer than it was. But any crash carries a risk. Freak complications can and do happen. Ask Massa or Surtees.
As I said, I did not read the FIA F1 rules. I have to assume that there are rules that are against endangering others purposely. Endangering yourself is an entirely different thing. The problem is, when you crash in order to cause a full course yellow/safety car situation you are a danger to others that is why a full course yellow is given and not just a stationary. The safety car is called SAFETY car becasue it provides safety for the participants and the cleanup crew. So causing that crash the team and driver took a risk of endangering the driver as well as endangering the other drivers as well as the safety crew that has to clean the mess while cars are flying by. You are absolutely right though. It was 'team orders' bt it is not just simple team orders and because of it has to be dealt with differently. When Rubens let Michael by they were 1-2 and ended up 2-1. There was no advantage in Constructor points but simply in drivers points. No other team got hurt in points and respectively it was a dumb move since they were leading so far ahead anyhow. When you look at Singapore you have the danger factor for their own driver and for the other drivers, for the safety crew that is always in danger when they have to enter the track and for the spectators (even if minimal). Besides that it changed the entore outcome of the Championship and points standing for multiple teams. So yes team orders but a lot more severe than letting someone pass. And you implied in your post as I read it, that that would be the only thing they can get Renault with. There I strongly disagree.
The way some people are dismissing the Singapore crash as just a matter of team orders is mystifying.
well, because technically they are right. It just goes to a whole new level. And I do understand and somewhat agree with team orders. Being probably on the fringe with my views here in the first place. I guess I always look at it from the driver and the team point of view having had to deal wearing two hats. Singapore is team orders and then a lot more and the 'a lot more' is what is scary. Giving how bad Nelson was driving in the first place I would say that it was clear that Flavio would have had to let the kid go at one point. So it is unbelievable how he can ask him to do that and not think it will ever come out. Unless, as mentioned earlier, hi ego has grown to such proportions that he feels invincible.
I concur, however to stress this point for any fan to go and pay good money to see a race and find the results of that race changed twice in the FIA board room within a week for a cleared overtaking move by a race director twice, I find that totally and utterly unacceptable and it reinforces the impression that the FIA to the masses is a complete and utter joke whilst Mosley is charge.
Of course you are right, no fan wants to see that. No fan wants to stand in virtory lane cheering his driver and now knowing if he really won. The problem is, if the team/driver gets away with it, it taints the sport. Just like the Schumacher/Rubens thing was hanging in the air. Thisone is much bigger. Sometimes we have to clean house. And you are right..an utter joke as long as the likes of Mosley are in that house.
Paragraph 12 from the Statement made by Nelson jn to te FIA: " During these discussion <with Pat Symonds>, no mention was made of any concerns with respect to the security implications of this strategy, either for myself, the public or other drivers. The only comment in this context was one by Mr. Symonds who warned me to "be careful", which I took to mean I should not hurt myself." Clearly Symonds had discussed this with Flavio. That comes clear from the previous statement and who was present at wat stage of these 'meetings'. So they clearly did not display a concern for the public of the other drivers. That is what is wrin with this picture.
And for those tat think Alonso did not know, well as a pro driver he should have. See Supplemmental statement by Nelson: Paragraph 13: they discussed in the pre-race briefing the strategies and that Alonso would pit at lap 12 and Nelson a lot later. Here you just have to assume that at that moment a top tier driver like Alonso would ask questions, which he did not. Especially how we know from theSpygate transcripts how involved Alonso gets in testing, strategy etc.
..and just a side note for those that think, well they were simply running two differen strategies. Night race Street Course. As we know from Monaco, passing is very difficult. So moving forward with a light fuel load on a heavier car ahead is still very unlikely and does not work on a low speed street crcuit like Monaco or Singapore. These strageties only work on high speed courses. So...yes, Alonso knew!
Personally I would have to say that Alonso would have had some suspicions that there was something planned and that he was being protected from knowing about it. I seriously doubt that it would have occurred to him that something so bizzare as an intentional crash was in the works though. Either way I see no grounds for a sanction on him.
...and assuming that the FIA and F1 would have taken the 'allegations' made by Nelson Sn. serious when he raised them in October of 2008, they could have then looked at the telemetry and interviewed Jr under oath, when he would have likely spilled the beans. The telemetry was used to further the investigation (paragraph 3.7 and paragraph 5 of the Stewards Report to the FIA). Since that is the obvious first place to look after video, the FIA had that handy in October of 2008 and could have reached the same conclusion as they did in the "Stewards Report to the FIA" of August 2009 after the Jr. Interview and his "Supplement Statement".
I would award him the same 'proven until guilty' but given his history in spygate....sorry, once caught stealing people will always look at you when something is missing. It should be 'reasonably assumed' that he knew what was going on or at least in restrospect should have raised those questions to the team and maybe the FIA. Most likely he will get away though. Not because he should but because it will hurt the publicity more if the FIA starts going after him now as well.
Point to Alonso in his interview with the Stewards though he said: "..the question of strategy was one that he largely left to his engineers" and earlier that "..fueling him short was an agressive strategy but one that was reflective (to him at least) of he fact that he had qualified unexpectantly low and in these circumstances he would not benefit from adopting a strategy similar to those ahead of him." Now although that makes sense, then who would he not question that they were running a completely different strategy on Nelson who was sitting right next to him at the starting grid? but then everybody will believe what they want.
What seaks then against Alonso is coming from the Stewards report paragraph 26: in the second interview with Symonds he states to the Stewards that "Mr. Alonso had reminded him (Symonds) <of a situation>, when full throttle had been applied by Mr. Alonso in circumstances where there had been wheel spin" Now why would Alonso tell Symonds about a defense for what cleary leads to 'deliberate' unless he was involved?
Thanks to Jeff. I just read through the entire transcript. mind boggling is all I can think. http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=258157
If it was as simple as checking the telemetry and the proof would be there I would agree with you, but I doubt that that is the case. What is the telemetry going to show? That Piquet went into the corner a bit too hot, that he got on the gas a little too early and too hard? That could be a simple driver error, which he was prone to make anyway. It's already emerged that there's no evidence of fixing in the radio communications and I imagine the team were just as careful in terms of how the crash was to be made to happen to minimise the possibility of detection. I absolutely accept that all is not rosy in the FIA garden but to blame them for everything that goes wrong is taking things a bit too far. It also implies that not a single senior person in the FIA has any integrity, which seems very unlikely.
Ian, why I blame the FIA or Max as I agree with you it is not every person within the FIA without integrity, but the buck stops with Max, as the problem is anyone with any integrity is to frightened to speak out. My feeling is that Flav thought he could get away with it, and you have to ask yourself why he thought that!! However he did to an extent for a good while. Now we have a FIA election and I believe there is a leak within to undermine Max and his methods. Have you have seen the telemetry.? I have somewhere on here I think, it compared it to Alonso's on the same corner. NPJ did not lift off when his wheels started to spin and lose traction, it was damning enough and at minium at least enough to open further investigation, and my bet is Max knew. However he brushed it off, as NPJ would not give an account of it IIRC, or Mosley felt that no action could be taken unless someone involved was willing to admit the offence. That tells me he knew but kept it up his sleeve.
Not to derail thread but: from Auto sport The data, republished here, shows how after a brief hesitant back-off as he experienced wheel spin coming out of the corner, Piquet floored the throttle until he smashed into the wall at Turn 17. This compares with Alonso's very different approach to the corner. Image Unavailable, Please Login
I think comparing Piquet's telemetry to Alonso's is a bad place to start, the comparison should be between Piquet's telemetry on the crash lap and his telemetry on previous laps, i.e. how he approached the corner on that lap compared to previous laps. Even if the telemetry raises suspicions some concrete evidence is needed and it wasn't available at the time. So, yes, the FIA probably knew but also they knew they couldn't make any charge stick so there was no sensible alternative to keeping quiet. In all of these things I ask myself about motive. What had Max/FIA to gain by covering up something like that if they had a solid case? Very little as far as I can see. To prevent F1 getting even more bad publicity? That's really a problem for Bernie not for Max. And what about the often mentioned on here bad blood between Max and Flavio? On that basis if Max had had any opportunity to use this situation last year to stick a knife into Flavio would he not have taken it? The suggestion that the FIA could successfully have taken action last year doesn't hold water.
