urmm wow

[Craig.]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78195

If true, then it makes the spygate thing look quite timid.
Either way me thinks young nelson can kiss goodbye to an F1 drive for good.

[expat]

F1 and a squeeky clean image is a bit like Bill Clinton being caught with his pants down. He was not the first, will not be the last, but was caught with his hand in the "cookie jar".
It is the same in F1, a shame, but it is so. Spying, woops I did not see you in my mirrors, and now, a safety car would be handy about now. It comes down to how far one wants to push the limits. A camera in the pit lane or a laptop full of info. A "brush" with the wall to get your team mate out of the poo or driving at 55 mph down the pit lane and not 60 mph when your team mates rival is behind you. They all do these things, just don't take the p$ss whilst doing it.
However on this subject, I would have thought "crashing" your F1 car just enough to bring the safety car out would be rather hit or miss and risks a visit to the vet!.................Unless of course you know your number within the team is up and have forwarded your bank account number to them first

Matt

[C]

Nice one. At Singapore too; only there Valencia and Monaco could you really guarantee that to work...

[expat]

Now Renault have been "summoned" :-?

Matt

[C]

Now Renault have been "summoned" :-?

Matt

Autosport carries some interesting opinion this week, mainly along the lines of "yes, that's what we all thought they did, as Alonso's strategy otherwise was bonkers", followed by "fair play to them if they did. It worked nicely sacrificing one car".

Apparently Piquet was asked to "push"... A subtle code perhaps.

[expat]

Now Renault have been "summoned" :-?

Matt

Autosport carries some interesting opinion this week, mainly along the lines of "yes, that's what we all thought they did, as Alonso's strategy otherwise was bonkers", followed by "fair play to them if they did. It worked nicely sacrificing one car".

Apparently Piquet was asked to "push"... A subtle code perhaps.

So in other words condoning cheating :-?

Matt

[CD.]

Summoned or summonsed?

Two VERY different meanings...

[C]

Now Renault have been "summoned" :-?

Matt

Autosport carries some interesting opinion this week, mainly along the lines of "yes, that's what we all thought they did, as Alonso's strategy otherwise was bonkers", followed by "fair play to them if they did. It worked nicely sacrificing one car".

Apparently Piquet was asked to "push"... A subtle code perhaps.

So in other words condoning cheating :-?

Matt

Tough one. A car crashed and the safety car favoured its team mate. Whether it was ordered pre-race is another matter, but to be honest, in some ways its no different to a teams second driver being a mobile roadblock for the team number one up front.

Hard one to judge I think.

[expat]

Now Renault have been "summoned" :-?

Matt

Autosport carries some interesting opinion this week, mainly along the lines of "yes, that's what we all thought they did, as Alonso's strategy otherwise was bonkers", followed by "fair play to them if they did. It worked nicely sacrificing one car".

Apparently Piquet was asked to "push"... A subtle code perhaps.

So in other words condoning cheating :-?

Matt

Tough one. A car crashed and the safety car favoured its team mate. Whether it was ordered pre-race is another matter, but to be honest, in some ways its no different to a teams second driver being a mobile roadblock for the team number one up front.

Hard one to judge I think.

Or team orders, your team mate "misses" a gear into a corner.

Matt

[C]

Now Renault have been "summoned" :-?

Matt

Autosport carries some interesting opinion this week, mainly along the lines of "yes, that's what we all thought they did, as Alonso's strategy otherwise was bonkers", followed by "fair play to them if they did. It worked nicely sacrificing one car".

Apparently Piquet was asked to "push"... A subtle code perhaps.

So in other words condoning cheating :-?

Matt

Tough one. A car crashed and the safety car favoured its team mate. Whether it was ordered pre-race is another matter, but to be honest, in some ways its no different to a teams second driver being a mobile roadblock for the team number one up front.

Hard one to judge I think.

Or team orders, your team mate "misses" a gear into a corner.

Matt

Yep, almost impossible to prove any dileberate action, unless they actually said the word "crash" or "put it in the wall" over the radio.

Poor qualifying, followed by a strategy which would never work...

...got to be guilty of it. Whether it demands action is for the FIA to decide.

[expat]

Now Renault have been "summoned" :-?

Matt

Autosport carries some interesting opinion this week, mainly along the lines of "yes, that's what we all thought they did, as Alonso's strategy otherwise was bonkers", followed by "fair play to them if they did. It worked nicely sacrificing one car".

Apparently Piquet was asked to "push"... A subtle code perhaps.

So in other words condoning cheating :-?

Matt

Tough one. A car crashed and the safety car favoured its team mate. Whether it was ordered pre-race is another matter, but to be honest, in some ways its no different to a teams second driver being a mobile roadblock for the team number one up front.

Hard one to judge I think.

Or team orders, your team mate "misses" a gear into a corner.

Matt

Yep, almost impossible to prove any dileberate action, unless they actually said the word "crash" or "put it in the wall" over the radio.

Poor qualifying, followed by a strategy which would never work...

...got to be guilty of it. Whether it demands action is for the FIA to decide.

The plot thickens, seems Piquet (so he says) was told to "crash" at turn 17, "The reason this part of the track was singled out was because there were no cranes present there to lift the car away, so any accident would virtually guarantee a safety car."

Crash or not to crash, but "push"

"At Turn 17 where Piquet crashed, normally the rear wheels of the Renault would lose grip on the exit - requiring the driver to ease off the throttle briefly. However, on the lap he crashed, Piquet kept accelerating even though the rear wheels had lost grip." :-?

Matt

[TSC.]

Piquet Jnr's statement to the FIA:

http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=co ... Itemid=219

[expat]

Piquet Jnr's statement to the FIA:

http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=co ... Itemid=219

Interesting read. What is more interesting is Pat Symonds

[The Ruptured Duck]

Its getting to sound a little crazy in F1 right now.

[Craig.]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78668

Flavio, Symmonds both gone from Renault.
Renault wont dispute the allegations when they face the WMC.
To me this has to be worse than the Mclaren information swap.
This one crash altered not only the race but also the championship, as Massa was comfortably leading the race when this happend. No SC at that moment, Massa goes on to win, and the points from that give him the drivers championship. End of the day you cant take away the season results based on this, and its not worth losing sleep over, but it certainly needs to be considered in punishment.
Also Fernando apparently knows about this, according to the Piquets, and considering everything thats happend so far from their information, its hard to doubt that right now.
I feel Flavio, Pat, and Nelson are done for good in F1, Fernando may find himself not far behind if found true, he was part of the Mclaren spying saga, having knowledge of what was going on. Now this. It doesn't help his credibility.