Renault Dismiss Flav and Pat or Oh dear… Here comes trouble - Page 8

Pingguest · 9 Sep 2009, 19:20 (Ref:2537252)

This 'Crash-gate' may well provide Renault the best way out of the sport?

phoenix · 9 Sep 2009, 20:06 (Ref:2537287)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jab

That's interesting. Briatore and Symonds have basically said it was a fix but it was Piquet's idea

To coin a phrase, "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?"

Two against one - let's hope for Piquet's sake there is some other evidence...... and for Renaults sake that there is not......

**Born Racer** · 9 Sep 2009, 21:29 (Ref:2537344)

Quote:

Symonds is also reported as saying: "It's true, during the Sunday meeting with Piquet the issue of deliberately causing a SC deployment came up, but it was proposed by Piquet himself. It was just a conversation."

Major respect lost for this guy.

djinvicta · 9 Sep 2009, 21:37 (Ref:2537349)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Major respect lost for this guy.

Sounds like a cover up, who knows. If its true as you say PS has lost credability. Flav will survive through this and lose whoever to keep control when Renault pulls the plug. These decisions arent made overnight, I bet this has rumbled undercover with the hierarchy since it happened. Now theyre caught out, Flav has sorted his future

strider · 9 Sep 2009, 21:40 (Ref:2537352)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bononi

Surreal as it seems, it's only the tip of the iceberg.

It must be because nothing that has been said so far justifies all the fuss. It's bad, but it's bad not enough.

Without really wanting to be the first to implicate Alonso, would he not have thought it strange that he was having such an early pit-stop, because that strategy would never have worked unless there was a safety car within a short number of laps afterwards.

jab · 9 Sep 2009, 21:42 (Ref:2537354)

Given that Symonds and Flav have conflicting stories, I know who I believe

Sodemo · 9 Sep 2009, 21:45 (Ref:2537357)

I always thought the spin itself looked odd. Like why did he keep his foot on the gas even though it was obvious he had lost the back end...

djinvicta · 9 Sep 2009, 21:54 (Ref:2537360)

Mr V. Ok. Alonso has nowt to do with this. Of course he wouldnt. Lets face it; If it was all sorted before the race I find it hard that the Team No1 knew nothing...

Satorian · 9 Sep 2009, 22:14 (Ref:2537376)

By now I feel oddly vindicated for my "Did Piquet crash on purpose to help Alonso?" thread and my conspiracy post from September, 28th 2008.

Nearly a year later.

I still think it was a genius move by Renault, except for that "probably getting caught" part.

Fox89 · 9 Sep 2009, 22:25 (Ref:2537382)

The thing with this scandal, if true, is that it isn't just some ambitious driver thinking "I'll try and help myself a bit here by making sure no one else can qualify". That's one man being greedy, and in Schumacher's case he got what seemed to me to be a fair punishment.

But the two most senior people in the team conspiring with a driver to cheat? That's something very different in my eyes. It's extremely hard to explain WHY it's very different, but it just is! XD

ensign14 · 9 Sep 2009, 22:26 (Ref:2537383)

Of course, Symonds might be right, in that the team might have been discussing how to make a strategy work, and Piquet said "I could always crash at the right time" and everyone laughed...

Marbot · 9 Sep 2009, 23:30 (Ref:2537412)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ensign14

Of course, Symonds might be right, in that the team might have been discussing how to make a strategy work, and Piquet said "I could always crash at the right time" and everyone laughed...

...and then when the laughing stopped,someone should have said: "No,we can't do that,we'll have to pit on lap twenty something like everyone else".

Marbot · 9 Sep 2009, 23:36 (Ref:2537416)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fox89

But the two most senior people in the team conspiring with a driver to cheat? That's something very different in my eyes. It's extremely hard to explain WHY it's very different, but it just is! XD

Your 'key' word there is "conspiring".

Mr V · 9 Sep 2009, 23:41 (Ref:2537420)

Quote:

Originally Posted by strider

Without really wanting to be the first to implicate Alonso, would he not have thought it strange that he was having such an early pit-stop, because that strategy would never have worked unless there was a safety car within a short number of laps afterwards.

I was under the impression that this conversation took place shortly before the race? But the teams had to let the FIA know the fuel levels for the race on the saturday, i.e - the day before, therefore, the pit stratergy would have been decided about 18 hours before the conversation took place.

Marbot · 9 Sep 2009, 23:46 (Ref:2537427)

I seem to remember that the event was heavily sponsored by ING (correct me if I'm wrong).Maybe greed and big bonuses got the better of some.

Also.Does Alonso have any say in his race strategy? Could he have possibly said: "I'm pitting on what lap!"

strider · 9 Sep 2009, 23:53 (Ref:2537436)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr V

I was under the impression that this conversation took place shortly before the race? But the teams had to let the FIA know the fuel levels for the race on the saturday, i.e - the day before, therefore, the pit stratergy would have been decided about 18 hours before the conversation took place.

Good point, but I still suggest that Alonso's fuel strategy was bizarre, unless...

To be honest, only time will tell.

Dutton · 9 Sep 2009, 23:53 (Ref:2537437)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Satorian

By now I feel oddly vindicated for my "Did Piquet crash on purpose to help Alonso?" thread and my conspiracy post from September, 28th 2008.

Nearly a year later.

I still think it was a genius move by Renault, except for that "probably getting caught" part.

It crossed my mind as a possibility at the time. It was very convenient. I see that thread had the predictable onslaught of how it was crazy to suggest such a thing.

Sinister conspiracies are always deemed fantasy-world stuff by most until they are shown to be true, at which point they are taken to be self-evident.

jab · 9 Sep 2009, 23:58 (Ref:2537439)

Yeah. At least Spygate was sort of believeable. This is just waaay beyond anything we've seen before

Marbot · 10 Sep 2009, 00:05 (Ref:2537445)

Spy-gate had the feature of having an ordinary member of the public (photocopy guy) spilling the beans.It was then just a case of how much it would hurt when the FIA threw the book at them.

James Allen's take on it.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2009/0...crash-meeting/

It does appear that only Autosport are running the story.

Mr V · 10 Sep 2009, 00:59 (Ref:2537452)

It does make me wonder, if this is true, why Renault decided to get rid of Piquet midseason, surely they know that the Piquet family would cry foul, if true, wouldn't they be better to have waited till the end of the season before dropping Piquet?

manwell · 10 Sep 2009, 03:22 (Ref:2537478)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr V

It does make me wonder, if this is true, why Renault decided to get rid of Piquet midseason, surely they know that the Piquet family would cry foul, if true, wouldn't they be better to have waited till the end of the season before dropping Piquet?

Maybe Renault were banking on the fact they didnt think Piquet would potentially ruin his career by admitting he crashed to help his team mate.

Personally i dont think its that bad.
A small punishment is worthwhile, but fixing results is nothing new.
Is it any worse than Barrichello letting Shumi past just before the finish line.
Or Shumi stopping on the last corner in qualifying for Monaco when he was on pole.

Super Hans · 10 Sep 2009, 09:14 (Ref:2537614)

Quote:

Originally Posted by manwell

Personally i dont think its that bad.

Me neither.

They do deserve a punishment of some sort but talk of life bans and whatnot is OTT.

calibrax · 10 Sep 2009, 09:20 (Ref:2537616)

Quote:

Originally Posted by manwell

Is it any worse than Barrichello letting Shumi past just before the finish line.
Or Shumi stopping on the last corner in qualifying for Monaco when he was on pole.

The point is that a deliberate crash endangers the lives of drivers, spectators and marshals. Imagine if he'd crashed and then another car had hit him at speed...

**Born Racer** · 10 Sep 2009, 09:36 (Ref:2537626)

It is unlikely anyone would've been injured, but that's not the point; someone could've been, and marshals, drivers, spectators etc. accept that motorsport is dangerous when they attend/take part, but they shouldn't have to accept people crashing deliberately crashing which endangers them.

If found guilty, they ought to throw the book at them. McLaren got some stupid fine for 'Spygate'. Renault got NOTHING for doing exactly the same thing. It's about time they got punished for something they've done.

Super Hans · 10 Sep 2009, 09:59 (Ref:2537640)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Born Racer

It is unlikely anyone would've been injured, but that's not the point; someone could've been, and marshals, drivers, spectators etc. accept that motorsport is dangerous when they attend/take part, but they shouldn't have to accept people crashing deliberately crashing which endangers them.

Drivers have crashed deliberately before in much more dangerous situations and have not been punished to anywhere near the extent being suggested for Renault.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Dear Dear Dear FPR (merged x1)	DJJ	Australasian Touring Cars.	238	3 May 2010 02:34
ING in trouble, what happens with Renault?	nobster	Formula One	46	30 Nov 2008 13:19
Proton - dismiss at your peril?	touringlegend	Touring Car Racing	18	28 Feb 2004 02:17
Oh dear, oh dear, prepare for the farce	angst	Formula One	3	25 Aug 2000 11:01
Jaguar: Oh dear oh dear oh dear	Minardi fan	Formula One	5	16 May 2000 07:21