Sidepodcast

The FIA finally got around to releasing the transcripts from the Renault hearing yesterday. Presumably the delay was related to printing out and then re-scanning a massive 77 pages of documentation, just to be sure no confidential information can be uncovered.

We predicted recently that “producing hard-copy, before digitising content” is the most likely way the FIA will release sensitive documents in the future. So inept are they in the ways of digital distribution that they probably figure that this sort of thing didn’t happen when they used fax machines, so why not stick with a tried and tested method. The net result of course is that everybody elses work is made a lot harder, and all because of an internal cock-up by the motorsport governing body.

This post is listed as The FIA Transcripts (Part 3). Parts one and two relate to the July and September hearings respectively, and as this case appears to be a continuation of that process it makes sense to reference them as three related hearings.

As an aside, Pitpass have noticed certain favoured sections of the media, are getting early access to these documents. Surely such a noble and upstanding organisation as the FIA would never stoop so low as to contemplate manipulating the media in this way, would they?

If you’re ever so slightly unhinged, or are suffering from acute insomnia you can download the PDF file and peruse the text at your leisure. Normally we’d use a screen reader to talk us through it, but sadly they struggle with faxed, photocopied and slightly-twisted pages… so read it we shall.

Contents Therein

The first point of interest is this case came about because an ex-Renault employee, now working at McLaren read Flavio’s comments following McLaren’s non-punishment in July. Briatore had said:

Just read the regulations. For intellectual property theft, the punishment is exclusion.

Priceless stuff Flavio. We doubt the guy regrets much in his life, but if he could change one thing…

Moving on, we learn from Mr. Ian Mill QC that Renault offered McLaren the opportunity to send in Kroll to search Renault’s workstations for incriminating evidence, but the team decided not to take up the offer because they were “engaged in other matters”. Ian Mill then proceeds to suggest that it should be Renault’s job to go and hang themselves, not McLaren’s business to prove them guilty. An odd approach for a lawyer, if ever there was one.

By contrast the team from Enstone turned up with their superstar-lawyer, Mr. David Philips. This guy introduces himself as “the new boy on the block”, something you don’t imagine Nigel Tozzi ever saying, then he proceeds to describe his witnesses as a “reserve football team”. If this wasn’t such a serious hearing, I think he’d probably prefer to be addressed simply as Dave.

Phil Mackereth

No question about it, you do not want Mr. Mackereth in your pub quiz team. The guy can’t remember a bloody thing. If McLaren employees suffer from selective amnesia, then what can you say about this guy?. He apparently has no clue what he did, when he did it or why he would have done so. His memory loss is so severe it’s verging on becoming a medical condition. In the end Ian Mill managed to coax out the following admission:

I was aware of [the file's] sensitivity. I must have been trying to disguise it.

No.freaking.kidding.

Annoyingly, just as Ian Mill got into the swing of things and pushed Phil into talking about Renault’s 2008 challenger, Max Mosely interrupted the flow. It seems a touch coincidental that at the very point the advantage appears like it might swing in McLaren’s favour that the president chooses to pipe up. Grr.

Further into the same discussion, things start getting a bit technical and the concept of renaming a file comes to the fore. At this point Max seems somewhat stressed by such a radical concept, and asked if if he understood. His reply was:

I do not think any of us do!

Bless him, it’s a complicated world isn’t it?

Getting Technical

From the details that have not been obscured we learn that McLaren are particularly proud of their seamless shift gearbox, but more importantly they’re concerned about the information Renault have gleaned relating to their cars weight distribution and steering angle. These are the very things McLaren are accused of learning from Nigel Stepney and Ferrari. By all accounts we should witness some pretty close racing at the head of the field next year then.

When it comes to how Renault staff learnt certain technical details relating to McLaren’s internal information, it would appear that many more members of the Enstone team have caught the memory loss virus. No-one appears have any solid recollection of any events at any time.

Selective amnesia is fast becoming a Formula 1 epidemic.

Closing

At times during this hearing it would appear that McLaren were on trial again. In fact Ian Mill’s closing comments sum up his team’s feelings well when he says:

McLaren considers that the very heavy sanction imposed upon in September 2007 was very harsh and, consistently with that, would not wish to see any other team put in the same position.

Max alludes to the real reason as to why this transcript’s release was delayed, when he references what he calls a third investigation into McLaren. Had that conversation come out before McLaren fell on their sword last week, it could have caused endless amounts of speculation and controversy.

In Conclusion

In all, this hearing seems less rushed than either of the previous two. There’s a very good argument to say that important cases such as these should be deferred until the off-season, just so that nothing gets inadvertently brushed under the carpet.

Should Renault have been punished? It’s a difficult call, because although there are many uncanny similarities between the two cases, and Renault don’t come across as being anywhere near as open and honest as they like to think they are being, the two-way flow of text messages and phone calls didn’t happen as it had with Ferrari / McLaren. The information that was gleaned, I’m sure, has many uses. Probably not much more than the teams discovered from the hearings earlier this year though.

One final point to make: There’s no sidestepping the fact that Formula 1 teams, much like canine lovers, pick representatives with similar characteristics as themselves. Compare if you will Ferrari’s Nigel Tozzi, a man who’s name even sounds Italian, Ian Mill a man so corporate he probably positions his sleeve so that the sponsors watch is visible at all times, and finally there’s Dave.

The spy hearings haven’t been much of a laughing matter, but the traits shared between a lawyer and his team is beauty personified.

Earlier in the year we were planning all sorts of fun things for the month of December, on the assumption that just like last year, it would be a very quiet month. We couldn’t have been more wrong, and yesterday was just the icing on the cake.

Time For Closure

Thursday started innocuously with Max Mosely threatening slick tyres may not necessarily be a shoe-in for 2009, unless aerodynamicists deliver on their promises to cut downforce by 50pc. If ever there was a story in need of burying, this was it.

Dutifully, Mutua Madrilena provided the necessary, by announcing they wouldn’t be sponsoring McLaren next year. Allegedly this had nothing to do with Alonso leaving the team, despite the fact that they sponsored him at Renault and then followed him to McLaren for ‘07. You can almost certainly expect them to end up back at Renault early next year.

Said sponsors exit was rapidly followed up by a public request from McLaren’s Martin Whitmarsh, asking the FIA for a swift end to the spying investigations, because it was hurting their sourcing of replacement sponsors. The team issued an unreserved apology for it’s inferred use of Ferrari data and suggested a development amnesty on certain parts of next year’s car, in return for closure.

In response, the FIA produced a press release saying Max had asked the WMSC to consider this issue closed - in the interests of the sport, of course. They also managed to dig out a 21 page technical report detailing some of the findings discovered during the investigation into McLaren’s 2008 car. A pretty impressive response, considering there’s still no sign of the Renault hearing transcripts over a week after the case was heard.

Finally, just to end the day on a high, Ferrari released a statement stating that they respect the FIA’s plan to bring closure to the situation, but are still planning to sue the backside off of all and sundry.

Revelations

What did we learn from the information distributed yesterday? Not a heck of a lot as it happens. Given that over half of the technical document had been removed for confidentiality reasons and the appendices are missing. It’s fun to note that this time the FIA decided to first erase the secret information, then print the document, before scanning it back in for digital distribution. Presumably this is their solution to document management in the modern era?

It is possible to fill in the missing information by using the September transcripts, but it’ll take a while and in some cases will be no more than simple guesswork. A unique exercise for the future, maybe.

What we did learn is that several McLaren employees suffer from what is described as ’selective amnesia’, whereby they’ve conveniently forgotten how certain information arrived at the company. We learn that there were more internal references to a ‘whistleblower’ and a ‘mole’, but nothing appears to be proven beyond a doubt. More than anything, this serves to justify the penalties brought about in September rather than suggest anything improper on next years car.

On that subject, we learn that McLaren’s 2008 entry appears to bear some similarities to the length of this year’s Ferrari, but I’m sure many teams will arrive with a longer wheelbase vehicle next year. Possibly that’s why the FIA wanted other teams to review the document before the planned February hearing. Suspicious coincidences also surround the use of a unique rear braking system, presumably this is a double-rear master cylinder with a spring.

Beyond that, there’s not too much to suggest McLaren would’ve had much to worry about next year. There’s always a chance we’ve missed something significant that was removed for confidentiality reasons, but it’s difficult to understand why the team decided to fall on it’s sword, the way it did yesterday. Possibly, unless something was done very soon, the team would be in a sorry financial state come the start of next year and this approach was the lesser of two evils.

In Conclusion

All said and done, a significant day in the history of Formula 1, if only because it’s the first time this year that the various parties have finally got their act together and produced a coordinated set of press releases, instead of the ‘he said / she said’ ping pong we’ve put up with most of the year.

The sport finally looks to have it’s house in order, although no doubt more details are still to come out from Ferrari’s court cases and Nigel Stepney’s planned book.

Assuming Max’s request is accepted by the WMSC next week, McLaren can move on with it’s 2008 plans and find a replacement sponsor (or several, as we’re still expecting Vodafone to take over as the series title sponsors, sooner rather than later). Additionally as the supplier of the single ECU, the team have a material advantage over the rest of the field next year, so the amnesty on development shouldn’t hurt them too much.

The FIA are happy, as on the surface their actions this year appear to have been vindicated. They got the apology they were after and 2008 should begin with a mostly clean sheet of paper.

Finally fans of the sport can begin to look forward, instead of back. No doubt there’s more to be analysed and discussed, but the Renault hearing transcripts aside, the remaining few weeks of the year should be nice and peaceful.

Amen to that.