Alonso Summoned to Appear at WMSC Hearing in Paris Tomorrow

I guess that makes me an "animal rights activist" in TifosiRon's view...

 

Nelson Sr. (as disagreeable as I find the man) only stated his suspicion. Massa did the same, directly after the race when he allegedly told Briatore that Nelson only crashed "because [Briatore] wanted him to."

It doesn't take a lot to speculate, as Nelson Sr. did, that Alonso knew about it. It seems pretty logical. Whether it will be enough to convince the WMSC is another matter. I am not sure what the burden of proof is before the WMSC. There is certainly enough circumstantial evidence to warrant a serious inquiry to which Alonso would have to respond. Presumably, the only ones who know the truth are Alonso, Briatore and Symonds. Unfortunately, if Alonso knew, I doubt anyone of them would tell the truth before the WMSC. I wouldn't be surprised if the WMSC will let Alonso walk yet again. Maybe they should give him prospective "life-time immunity."

 

Based on the Autosport link Carol posted a few days ago, only Pat, Flavio, and PK knew about the race fixing. I think Alonso had no idea about this...

 

That's the official version of the story. Piquet Sr.'s point is however that Alonso's fuel strategy made no sense if there wasn't the crash planned all along: Alonso qualified well because of a light fuel load. However under normal circumstances, that would have totally ruined his race because he had an extra fuel stop on a track where you can't pass.

 

Actually, I think the relevant inquiry is whether someone figured out the potential link once Piquet Jr. told the truth about what had happened, not at the time of the race. (After all, Piquet Sr. has known about this for a long time.)

This was not hard to do. My dog, not being very interested in F1 didn't watch the race, immediately suspected that Alonso knew about the strategy when news about Piquet Jr.'s statement was leaked.

 

Correct, I think we can safely say FA was in on it and the crash was premeditated.

 

Pennys just dropped...LOL...

 

Or, it could be because of SC situation. Remember, new circuit, night race, street circuit, i'm quite sure Fred won't have bothered much, considering they weren't in the WDC or WCC fight.

 

I am confident you know that Alonso did not qualify well, and simply misspoke. Alonso qualified 16th and started with a light fuel load. Although quite unusual under the circumstances, it is not a totally insane strategy to start light hoping for a safety car. It is a much, much, much better strategy if you know a safety car is coming out right after you pit, however.

 

Alonso claiming that he didn't know is surprising to anyone? Most guilty people claim innocence at first, then when convicted pray for mercy. Renault seems to have taken a different approach. Kudos to them. Not so much to Briatore, who denied any knowledge first, then claimed he left F1 to "save Renault." Flavio, please.

 

No, I got that wrong. I didn't check the facts (actually remembered an article the wrong way around) and fell flat on my face. Now I'm actually perplexed: How could he not have qualified well with a light fuel load?

As I said: Your dog is smarter than me.

 

IIRC his car had a problem in Q1 so he was unable to continue. He was free to choose his fuel load though. Only the top 10 have to race on the fuel they qualified with.

Woof

 

My recollection is that he had a problem in Q2 with the fuel rig, and started 16th. But my dog and fact-checker is napping, so I may be off. I am trying to find my old F1 magazine to see if there was any discussion about Piquet Jr.'s crash.

 

You're probably right about Q2 since he was 15th. All I remember is him in the runoff area having a hissy fit lol.

But either way, that does mean that he was free to choose his fuel load and chose the "crash strategy"...

 

The only comment I found about the crash last year was in Swiss Blick. But Benoit loves to speculate about everything, so I didn't jump on it particularly since nobody else went any further with that story.

 

The BBC had a whole item dedicated to the crash-gate last race weekend. IIRC Alonso was very fast in qualifying in Singapore, but encountered a technical problem (gearbox?) which either resulted in not being able to take part in Q2/Q3 or a grid penalty for changing the gearbox. In any case due to these tehcnical problems he was so far back on the grid. He was free to choose his fuel load.

 

Cloudy with a chance of meatballs and French fries.

 

Alonso or the team was free to choose?

 

It was the fuel pump guys. If it were the rig they have a spare.
The fuel pump broke.

 

...and that strategy does not make an ounce of sense in a steet course race. not an ounce. On a high speed course where you can use the advantage of light load makes speed and you can open a gap larger than the time of a pitstop, then it would make sense, other than that it is suicide. Technically if Nelson had not crashed Alonso would have ended dead last. That is how bad that strategy was and for a top tier driver like Alonso he would have had to question that strategy heavily with his team engineers but such discussion apparently never happened.
In his case what proves him guilty is what he did not do, not what he did do.

 

You guys are all assuming they even told Alonso the real strategy. Thy could have very easily told him it was going to be one thing then did what they did. It's not unsual to change strategy mid-race, and that race, Piquet's crash or not was very confusing. It would be reasonable to assume that this is something they would never tell him, or any other driver, in that position. There's no proof that he knew, only one man's opinion. And we all know the old saying concerning people's opinions.

 

Except that if you read the FIA report, the interviews and the findings to the FIA by the Stewards you will see that the original strategy was for a 3-stop. That was discussed in the pre-race meeting with both drivers present and the racing engineers and crew.
Since that strategy does not make sense in the first place you just have to believe that a driver like Alonso would question that strategy heavily, especially since we know how involved he is in development and strategy back from the spy-gate scandal.
So he was told the 'official' strategy which does not make sense and did not question it and as such we have to assume he was well aware of the 'inofficial' strategy, otherwise he would have raised a question. Heck even the engineers in the pits asked if that was agood call.

 

Okay, time to laugh at the nerd who watches F1 with a clipboard.

Alonso had the sixth fastest time in Q1, but his car stopped with mechanical problems in Q2 and he didn't set a time in that session. (That was one of the video highlights of qualifying: Alonso was severely frustrated by the failure.) That put him on the grid in 15th (last of the Q2 places).

Piquet just missed the Q1 cut, and qualified 16th, 0.009s behind Coulthard's Q1 time. DC went on to qualify 14th with the slowest Q2 time (of those who set a time).

Betting on an SC period would seem like damage control, after that qualifying problem with an otherwise competitive car.

There were two SC periods in that race -- one for Piquet's crash, and the other when Sutil went into the barriers trying to avoid Massa, who had slid out on lap 50, trying to recover from that debacle of a pit stop.

While an early stop might (now) be questioned, remember that both Kubica and Rosberg were forced to come into the closed pits (laps 16 and 15, respectively) to avoid running out of fuel -- they were on short first stints, too. Kubica qualified fourth, and Rosberg qualified ninth (elevated to eighth when Heidfeld was given a three spot penalty for impeding).

Rubens, Webber, and DC all ducked into the pits on lap 14 (either before the crash, or before the pits closed afterwards).

Rubens stopped on-track on lap 15 after leaving the pits, which also made the SC period longer. (Should the FIA call Honda in for "involvement"? )

Everybody was running on light fuel for a race like Monaco without daylight --- except Fisi and Trulli, who were on one-stops.
(Trulli, with one-stop fuel, was *four seconds* off the pace, early in the race.)


Indycar (who have lots of SC periods) have this down to a formula: If the track stays green, staying out longer is better. But if there's an SC period, the cars that pit early get a boost. (You're not going to tell me F1 isn't as smart about pit strategy as Indycar? )

When was the last time F1 ran Monaco or Canada without an SC period? Betting on an SC at Singapore was a good bet.
(Probably will be again, next weekend.)
(Watch for Alonso stop on lap 12 again, just for spite. )

 

I'm thinking the FIA will be watched closely today, as to what they will do.

They have never been consistant, Renault and when they were the Benetton team have been let off in the past, on a cheating charge, ruling that illegal modifications were made by a junior employee.

The FIA International Sporting Code which states that “the entrant shall be responsible for all acts or omissions on the part of their driver, mechanic and passengers, each equally responsible for any breach of this code”

The rules also state that the federation can punish “any breach of the regulations committed by any organiser, official, competitor, driver, or other person or organisation”.

So thats Flav and Symonds sorted, the FIA seem to think there is no reason to suspect that Alonso was part of the plot... we shall see.

If there was ever a time for a clean up in this sport it is now, starting with Mosley.