Evil Nelson – A Manna Rag - Noel Slevin

F1 2010

January 10th, 2010 by Noelinho

For all the controversy we’ve had in Formula 1 over the past 3 years – Spygate, Crashgate, Liegate, the mass manufacturer pull-out, double diffusers – we’ve actually had some pretty good racing too. 2007 was a fantastic fight between the McLaren drivers and Kimi Raikkonen; 2008 featured a great battle between Hamilton and Massa; 2009 was a season split virtually down the middle, with a storytale start to the season for Brawn, with McLaren and Red Bull pushing them all the way at the end of the season – but ultimately coming up short.

You could be forgiven for thinking that we must, therefore, be due a dull season this year – especially with double diffusers legal until the end of this season (thus affecting overtaking). If you thought that, you’d be wrong.

For a start, we have four teams who will be realistically expecting to mount a serious title challenge this year, all with good driver line-ups.

There’s McLaren, with current world champion Jenson Button – the most precise driver on the grid – and Lewis Hamilton, who was champion in 2008 and has more points than any other driver in the last two seasons; they were also the form team at the end of last year.

There’s Red Bull, who probably had the pick of last year’s cars, and have the mightily quick Vettel, alongside Webber who will race this year without the impediment of metal plates in one leg. When they get their heads down, both can be virtually unstoppable, but also get caught up in drama regularly when in the middle of a pack.

There’s Mercedes – formerly Brawn GP – who have Nico Rosberg, who has never quite fully realised his potential yet. In the other car, they have a mere 7-times world champion whose name must surely BE the definition of “winner” – Michael Schumacher. He may be 41, but he’s in it to win it, and he’s shown he can still do it – beating many F1 drivers in regular karting events since his retirement.

Finally, and most excitingly, there’s Ferrari, with Alonso – a 2-times world champion, and Massa, who was, in my mind at least, comfortably the pick of the drivers in 2008 (from the third race in at least), and who drove the socks out of last year’s Ferrari until he himself was socked in the head and was conked out for the season. Alonso will bring excellent and much needed technical input to Ferrari and never has an off day; Massa is, quite simply, astoundingly quick, and has got more and more consistent every year. There is nothing to suggest he won’t bounce back from last year’s awful accident.

So, who will come out on top? Until testing, we really won’t know much. However, I would hazard this much: the McLaren may well start as the car to beat, with Red Bull and Mercedes very close behind. Hamilton will beat Button. Vettel will beat Webber, and will make less mistakes, giving him a real chance this year – as long as he can learn to overtake better. Schumacher will beat Rosberg, and will, after 3 years out, be hungry to win. He won’t easily be bullied off track in a fight because he’s laid so much on the line to come back. Ferrari will likely start a little behind the others, but with Alonso in their armour, they will start to catch up. Being slower than the others won’t matter too much either – they have the strongest line-up in F1, and there are no two better drivers to extract more speed out of a slightly slower car (Hamilton excepted – possibly).

The key to F1 2010 lies with Schumacher and Ferrari. If they are both strong, we’re in for the most exciting season in living memory. Otherwise, it’ll be Hamilton v. Vettel – and Hamilton will win.

Tags: Formula 1
Posted in Formula 1, Sport | No Comments »

New Year’s Resolutions

January 1st, 2010 by Noelinho

Just under 20 years ago, I resolved never to make any New Year’s Resolutions again. Of course, that year passed quite some time ago, and I have decided I’ve had enough of sticking to that, so here are a few resolutions for 2010:

I will read my Bible every day;
I will vote for [deleted - secret ballot and all that] in the General Election;
I will learn a new language;
I will read at least 20 books;
I will post on my website more;
I will set a personal best in a 10k race;
I will try out a new sport;
I will pass my driving test;
I will explore new territory on my racing bike;
I will be as witty, dark and cutting as ever.

So there you go, ten resolutions. All attainable. Many can be done to varying degrees of success, others just need done. Succeeding in 1) will be the hardest, but also the most rewarding. Succeeding in 2) just needs done, as does 8). But 3), 4), 6), 7) and 8) can all be as easy or hard as I make them.

My best time in a 10k race is just over 42 minutes. I would love to do it in under 40, although in training, I have actually managed 38 minutes. Somehow.

Learning a new language – I LOVE languages. I studied French for ten years from the age of six. I would love to be fluent in that again, but also to learn Italian, German, Gaelic and a Nordic language. Oh, I also got a 1st in New Testament Greek too..

Trying out a new sport – well, I have one in mind actually. Curling. Don’t laugh. I LOVE watching it. Why not give it a go?

So there you go, there are my top ten New Year’s Resolutions. Feel free to ask me about them. Please do, in fact. Make sure I stick to them. And if you want to, join me in them! Run with me, cycle with me, read with me, learn with me. But don’t try and vote with me. It’s secret. And don’t try and be funny. I have a monopoly on that.

So anyway, Happy New Year!

Posted in General | No Comments »

Methodology Is Important

December 21st, 2009 by Noelinho

I need to make an admission: I’m not really THAT bothered about climate change. There, I’ve said it. Berate me as much as you like. I know I should care, but I just don’t. Maybe it’s because it doesn’t affect me enough. In fact, that’s exactly what it is. But anyway, I’m a leftie who doesn’t really care about climate change.

That said, knowing I really should care, it’s probably about time I had a good look for myself. Conveniently, the Met Office have released raw data from their weather stations. A perfect opportunity to have a look for myself. More on that later.

However, other people have also had a look. Iain Dale has posted up some findings found by a reader of Iain Dale’s Diary which shows that Oxford is getting cooler. The methodology? To compare the highest temperature recorded in set time periods and compare them. The result? Well, to be honest, the commentary is rather garbled and unclear. It seems to suggest that Oxford is cooler now than in 1938, but that it was warmer last year. So, on balance, it would seem to argue there’s been little difference in temperature over the last 70 years – but that’s just a guess. Like I said, it’s pretty hard to work out exactly what the argument is.

There is one major problem with this method – there is no allowance for extreme values. Extreme values skew data. You can prove anything with them – especially when looking at a complicated issue like climate.

So, here is an alternative analysis of the raw data from the Oxford weather station. It is by no means perfect. It has been done very quickly. I have not subjected it to complicated scientific tests. But it has a method. Which is as follows:

I have taken the last decade (the Noughties) and taken the maximum temperature in June of every year in that decade. I would take the mean temperature, but that data is not available. I have then totalled those ten numbers (this year’s is still provisional, but is unlikely to change significantly) and divided them by ten. This gives us – wait for it – a mean maximum temperature. So, if you take the last ten years, you have an average of what that would be in any given year. Not a fantastic measurement, I accept, but it’s the best I can do with the data available. I have then repeated the process for the first decade of the 20th Century. I have picked these BEFORE looking at the data, so you can’t say I’ve taken convenient data. I have taken it randomly. I have then taken an intermediate value between the two – the 1950s.

On the other end of the scale, I have taken the lowest recorded temperature in each December and applied the same method to achieve a mean minimum temperature. This should provide a (superficial) indication of whether winters and/or summers have got warmer over the last century. By balancing the figures over a decade each time, extraneous values in either direction should have minimal effect. So, for anyone still reading, here are the figures:

Table 1.1 – Absolute Temperatures.

	1900s	1950s	2000s
Absolute Minimum Temperature	0.6	-0.7	0.2
Absolute Maximum Temperature	24.3	23.9	27.1

Table 1.2 – Mean Temperatures

	1900s	1950s	2000s
Mean Minimum Temperature	2.09	2.45	2.98
Mean Maximum Temperature	21.83	21.59	22.54

So, what does this show? Firstly, comparing the 1900s with the 2000s shows a clear rise in the mean maximum and minimum temperatures. The 2000s, according to this (very loose) data, were warmer. However, the lower minimum temperature in the 2000s suggests there could potentially be more fluctuation in temperature now than 100 years ago. Or it could be an anomaly.

Interestingly, the 1950s featured cooler absolute values for both June and December, the mean temperature in June was the coolest of the three, and the mean for December is halfway between the two.

Verdict: Further investigation required into the 1950s. Investigate possible reasons for anomalies. Clear 2000s clearly warmer than 1900s according to this data. Further comparison of the other decades in between needed to verify this data is not an anomaly itself.

Most of all, though, we need much more detailed data – day by day data is required much more than month by month if any meaningful data is to be extracted from this exercise.

Feel free to comment – healthy (and polite) debate welcomed, but leave essays for your own sites, please. I have no agenda. I just like looking at numbers. Thanks for reading.

Tags: Climate Change, Met Office
Posted in Politics | No Comments »

On Yer Bike!

October 30th, 2009 by Noelinho

Bicycle Today, I picked up my new toy. I say toy – it’s rather expensive for a toy. But it’s fast. I got my new racing bike, the Specialized Allez 16. I resisted the temptation to ride it back to my flat and instead walked it home so I could set it up properly.

I have, over the past few years, “owned” a number of bikes.I say “owned” – I’ve never paid so much as a penny for any of them. When I used to live in Hertfordshire, I got through a couple of second-hand bikes from All Nations Christian College (it’s ok, I didn’t steal them – I was allowed). The first, a mountain bike, got stolen from Edmonton Green during the day after I locked it up but forgot to take the keys. The second bike was a rather rusty affair, but was a much faster racing bike. It was very durable – more durable than originally intended, without doubt. Many a time I raced down gravel canal tow paths and on a couple of occasions almost befriended the canal as I cycled much faster than any bike really should on such a surface.

I also crashed it quite a few times. There was the time the chain ceased up in front of a bus. There was the time I rode into a bollard. There was the time I went flying over the handlebars having avoided an accident (right in front of a primary school, too). There was the time my clothes got caught in the bike and I slowly ground to a halt by the side of the road and gradually keeled over, unable to prise myself from the bike. Funnily enough, three of those accidents happened on the same road! Oh, and then there’s the bomb scare, and the times both brakes simulatneously failed whilst going downhill towards a “T” junction.

Anyway, I also had a couple of bikes in Glasgow. The first broke down and was written off in the cycle shop. The second still works, but it’s a mountain bike and is slow. Neither bike has been through anything mildly exciting to tell you about – much to my bemusement. Although there was the time the rear light smashed on a main road in Edinburgh. That was an exciting journey, now I think of it. And there’s a video too. Somewhere.

Anyway, living slightly out of Glasgow itself, I decided I need to invest in some decent wheels. I’d also quite like to explore some of the west coast islands, and a bike is probably the easiest way to do that. On top of that, I have for a while thought that it would be fun, one day, to try my hand at a triathlon. If I could ever learn to swim faster. So, anyway, I’m taking it out for my first ride(s) on it in the morning. Are there any speed cameras nearby? I think that’s challenge number one!

Tags: Cycling, Glasgow
Posted in General | No Comments »

New England @ Tampa Bay – In London

October 28th, 2009 by Noelinho

Last weekend, I was in London for the third International Series NFL game at Wembley stadium. The first game, two years ago, was between the hopeless Miami Dolphins and the eventual Superbowl-winning New York Giants. Last year, the New Orlean Saints beat the San Diego Chargers in a closely fought offensive battle.

This year, it was the turn of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and my favourite team, the New England Patriots. It didn’t turn out to be the close affair of the previous two years, but no-one really expected it to anyway. The two teams have won four of the last eight Superbowls between them – Tampa Bay in 2001; New England won in 2002, 2004 and 2005. The Patriots should have won in 2007, going 18-0 on the way to the Superbowl only to lose to the Giants in the dying seconds. Then, last year, they lost quarterback Tom Brady in the first game, fought back to an impressive 11-5 record but just missed out on the play-offs.

Going into the game on Sunday, Tampa Bay were 0-6 and New England were 4-2, having lost to the Denver Broncos (themselves 6-0) and the New York Jets. The Patiots were favourites by fourteen points and few expected Tampa to challenge for very long.

This was proved correct very quickly, as Brandon Meriweather returned an interception for a touchdown with only the fourth play of the game to give the Patriots an early lead. He then picked off a second ball later in the first quarter and returned it to almost halfway.

Once the Patriots had the lead, they didn’t look like giving it up. By half time, they were up by 21-7, and in the second half were just as dominant. In the fourth quarter, Tom Brady was replaced by Brian Hoyer, who didn’t throw a single pass, but did scramble a couple of times for some good yardage. After a dominant win against the Tennessee Titans in week 6 (59-0), the Patriots are starting to look like a team that could go to the AFC Championship game this year. However, in order to get to that, they will almost certainly have to beat one of the Broncos, the Steelers or the Colts along the way in the play-offs – all of whom seem to be marginally better at the moment. Either way, the AFC is looking a very tough conference en route to the Superbowl. The NFC, on the other hand, looks like being between the Saints and… well, themselves, really.

Anyway, some final thoughts on the Wembley game. I’ve been to all three games, and this, I would say, has been the best overall. All three games have been very well attended, and have been good games in their own right. At the first game, there was a certain element of fascination. Many of the people who were there were people who wanted to see what the NFL was all about. Last year, there was less of that, and the game was very good anyway. This year was potentially divisive – on the one hand, the New England Patriots have a good fanbase in Britain. On the other hand, they are also one of the more unpopular teams too – you either love them or hate them for their success. If you hate them, you’re not likely to buy tickets to watch them play. Despite this, the match was easily a sellout, and the people who were there stayed interested to the end.

I am excited by the possibility of having two games next year. I would go to both games without hesitation (as long as it’s not between two teams I despise, and preferably not a Jets game). Indeed, I am all for having more than two games. A franchise would be nice, but problematic, and I can’t see myself giving up on the Patriots to support a London team. However, that’s not to say I wouldn’t happily adopt them as a second team if it means I get to see more NFL action closer to home…

Tags: New England Patriots, NFL, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Wembley
Posted in American Football, Sport | No Comments »

One Week On: The Rangers Story Of Woe

October 28th, 2009 by Noelinho

Last week, I had the (dubious) pleasure of watching Rangers play at home in the Champions’ League against Romanian champions Unirea Urziceni. With a prime seat right in front of the away dugout, and within easy shouting distance of the home dugout, I was looking forward to a home win. After all, the team Rangers were playing are, on paper, by far the weakest in the group, and Ibrox doesn’t tend to be an easy place to play at.

How wrong could I have been? What should have been a comfortable 3-0, 4-0 or 4-1 victory turned into a 4-1 loss to a side worth less than a tenth of the value of the Rangers bench. Rangers took the lead within 5 minutes from a corner kick as a shot from the edge of the box took a deflection and looped over the keeper’s head and into the net. Harsh, but you make your own luck. It was looking good. A strong, attacking start gave an early reward. More of the same and the ‘Gers would be fine.

Except they weren’t. They sat back, defending deep in their own half, soaking pressure up and then sitting on the ball, going nowhere. No-one rose to challenge headers, and slowly the pub team from Eastern Europe crept down the wings, through the middle and into the box. Mendes’ opening goal was cancelled out by an equaliser from Bilasco. Rangers won a penalty, which Steven Davis missed. At half time, the teams went in at 1-1. The frustration was clear, with a number of comments flying towards Ally McCoist in the Rangers dugout. Most were to do with Jerome Rothen, on loan from PSG. To say he wasn’t popular is an understatement. The mood amongst the fans was clear – send him back to PSG and put Nacho Novo on in his place.

Rangers did make one change at half time, and it was not met with appreciation in the stands. Rothen stayed on, whilst Mendes, who picked up knock in the first half, was replaced by Kyle Lafferty. Unfortunately for him, he poked the ball in his own net within five minutes, and then Lee McCulloch did the same ten minutes later. The crowd, which was subdued when the first goal went in, was stunned into pin-drop silence. At 2-1, you could have heard the players breathing in the centre circle. At 3-1, the stunned silence was replaced first by approximately 10% of the Rangers supporters making their way to the exit, and then by those left in the stands openly booing the players loudly for some considerable time. By the dugouts, the atmosphere was openly mutinous.

At 4-1… I don’t really remember that bit. I suspect all eyes were still on the dugout. Soon after, the stadium was little over half full. No-one could quite believe the ‘Gers were losing, let alone losing so badly.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like anything will change soon. The club are £30 million in debt and have no money to buy new players. They are struggling to hold on to the players they have already. At the weekend, they drew with Hibs. Earlier in the season, they player out three 0-0 draws in a row. There doesn’t seem to be much light at the end of the tunnel. How can Rangers turn around? Is it even possible, or are they finally paying the hard price of playing in a league that doesn’t provide them with enough of the competition that it required on the European stage? And, regardless of the European stage, why are they struggling so much against Scottish teams?

The current instability at board level can’t be helping, but it also can’t be the whole story.

Tags: Rangers FC
Posted in Football, Sport | No Comments »

Let’s Raise The Personal Tax Allowance

September 23rd, 2009 by Noelinho

We are currently going through the annual Party Conference season, with the Liberal Deomcrats currently finishing their conference. Whilst I personally find much of the conference season quite dull, it is a good time to see some of the policy suggestions eminating from the grassroots and seeing how much traction they gain.

I personally have been taken by a suggestion that in itself is nothing new – in fact, it has been floated around in a number of places before now – but which seems very practical and universally beneficial given the current economic situation. The proposal? To raise the Personal Tax Allowance to £10,000.

Currently, the Personal Tax Allowance for 2009-10 sits at £6,475. People do not pay income tax unless they earn over this amount in the financial year. Once they hit this marker, they start paying the basic rate of tax which, since the abolition of the 10p tax rate, sits at 20%. By raising the Personal Tax Allowance, anyone who earns more than £6,475 would be better off. Anyone earning over £10,000 a year would be, according to my calculations, £705 better off through such a tax cut.

Now, I know what some people are thinking – how would it be funded? Well, according to the Office of National Statistics, there are 28,891,000 people in employment in the United Kingdom at the moment. Assuming everyone benefits from this, and nothing else is put in place to offset this tax cut, the cost, according to my calculations, would be £20.38 billion. So, scrap Trident and I.D. cards and you go quite some way towards paying for such a tax cut. Trident has been estimated as costing anything up to £120 billion to replace over a 30-year period, thus costing up to £4 billion a year. I.D. cards themselves have been estimated to cost £18 billion, and so scrapping these two schemes would save a good deal of the money required to make such a cut work.

In order to make this work, you would, in all likelihood, need to raise taxes somewhere else. One option would be to lower the Higher Rate of tax slightly in order to re-coup the money. By reducing the Higher Rate of tax from £37,400 to £35,750, you would negate much of the impact of the tax cut on higher earners, but at the same time, avoid raising the level of income tax paid by higher earners (and also minimising the cost to the Treasury). Thus, everyone would experience a tax cut, but it would be targeted specifically at those people earning less than £35,750, and would represent a significant tax break to the very lowest earners.

I would argue this to be of particular importance given the current economic climate. Why? Because work doesn’t always pay. We hear policy after policy about taking benefits away from the unemployed, but little about truly making work pay. But it is in our interests to make work pay now. The more people we have working, the less people we have on benefits, the we pay out, the more tax we collect, the more we have to spend on real public services when money is exceptionally tight. That can’t be mad. Moreover, we provide an incentive to work. Can you bloame people on piss-poor wages for not working when working leaves them with very little extra in their pockets? I don’t. But give them a higher Personal Tax Allowance, show them they will have more money in their pockets – £60 per month – and maybe it will provide that little incentive. £13 a week doesn’t sound like much, but £705 a year soon adds up.

Footnote: I am not a tax expert, but I do have basic maths skills. My calculations make no account for Tax Credits, as I just don’t understand them well enough. But you get the idea. Let the tax boffins work out the absolute finer details of the exact numbers – they can’t be too far off.

Tags: Labour, Policy, Tax
Posted in Politics | No Comments »

Renault And The Singapore Crash: The Plot Thickens Again

September 22nd, 2009 by Noelinho

You’d have thought that with the announcement of the outcome of the FIA World Motor Sport Council’s hearing yesterday, the Singapore controversy would die down. Instead, another potentially explosive and certainly unhelpful time-bomb has been ignited with the release of the audio tapes from the hearing.

The audio tapes reveal an unsettled bone of contention between Piquet and Symonds on who came up with the plan to crash in order to cause a safety car, although Piquet’s legal team implicate Symonds by pointing to his seniority within the team and the unlikelihood of Piquet coming up with a strategy that would in effect make him look like a fool and gift Alonso a win.

However, the real eyebrow-raiser is the unveiling in Renault’s submission of Witness X. This witness is reportedly someone who was present at discussions about the crash, who knew about the crash before it happened and who was informed about it initially by Pat Symonds. This raises a number of questions:

Who is this Witness X? Or, to put it another way, who might Pat Symonds tell about such a plot?
Do they still work for Renault F1?
Why has their identity been protected? Why exactly is this person protected above others?

If a fourth person knew about this plot and then kept quiet when it was enacted – regardless of their involvement in actually carrying the plot out – then they are surely implicated in conspiring to cover up in the aftermath of the plot. From the way the submissions are phrased, it seems that this person is still employed by Renault F1, which would mean that Renault have in their ranks an employee who has knowingly conspired in a covering up (although not actively implementing) a plot that knowingly endangered the lives of drivers and spectators, and which caused the Renault F1 team to cause a deliberate crash in order to unfairly gain his team an advantage. People like this should not be involved in F1.

The identity of Witness X has been made known to the President of the FIA and to some of the FIA’s lawyers. Speculation as to who this may be will rumble on. Many will conclude that the reason this person’s identity has been concealed is because they are of relative importance within the team. Indeed, you would think that, given the nature of such a plot, the person must be a senior, trusted member of the team – why would you divulge such dangerous details to a junior team member?

Suspicion seems to have fallen on three people – firstly, Piquet’s engineer, secondly, Fernando Alonso, and thirdly, Bob Bell, Renault’s Technical Director. Many will pin the blame on Alonso, but this seems unlikely to me. What we know is that Witness X knew of the plan, dismissed it, and was not aware that such a plot would be carried out until after it has been. The first thing Alonso remarked after the race upon seeing Flavio Briatore prior to the podium ceremony was on the good fortune of the safety car coming out when it did. If Alonso had suspicions and had distanced himself from a plot, I very much doubt he would have said anything at all. Bob Bell, the Technical Director, has been mentioned because he apparently appears prominently in a number of photographs from the Singapore Grand Prix, and is usually a man who keeps in the background. However, there does not appear to be any evidence to actually implicate him with any knowledge.

This leaves Piquet’s race engineer, who clearly seemed suspicious, raising questions about Piquet’s request over the radio to know which lap he is on – an unusual request. It may be an unusual request, but why would you consult your Executive Technical Director before responding to such a question – unless you were suspicious?

Just a thought.

Posted in Formula 1, Sport | No Comments »

Witch-Hunt Successful, But Little Justice Delivered

September 21st, 2009 by Noelinho

Today, Renault were hauled in front of the World Motor Sports Council (WMSC) as the investigation into allegations of race-fixing at last year’s Singapore Grand Prix were wrapped up. Unfortunately, the punishment dished out bore little correlation to the seriousness of the crime, and did little to draw on the context of how previous offences have been dealt with.

The charge – just to recap very quickly – was that three members of the Renault F1 team (Flavio Briatore, Pat Symonds and Nelson Piquet) conspired to fix the Singapore Grand Prix in 2008 so as to gain an unfair advantage for the team’s other driver, Fernando Alonso (although without his knowledge). The claim originated from Nelson Piquet. Briatore denied the charges, Pat Symonds chose to say as little as possible to avoid incriminating himself, but did nothing to say that such a plan was not in place – an implicit admission of guilt.

The WMSC could have permanently thrown Renault out of F1 today, such was the seriousness of the crime. However, they could take little action against the three men involved as Piquet was granted immunity, and Symonds and Briatore no longer are employed by an F1 team, and so therefore technically fall outwith the jurisdiction of the body.

The penalties actually imposed were: a suspended two-year ban for the Renault F1 team. Oh, and that’s pretty much it. Apart from billing Renault F1 for the costs of the investigation, and requiring them to take part in FIA road safety campaigns (which they actually offered themselves).

As the WMSC technically couldn’t personally punish Briatore or Symonds, they have resolved to refuse to sanction any events that either of the two involve themselves in – Briatore for an indefinte period, Symonds for a period of five years.

Here is an extract of the statement from the hearing regarding the punishment imposed upon the Renault F1 team:

The World Motor Sport Council considers Renault F1’s breaches relating to the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix to be of unparalleled severity. Renault F1’s breaches not only compromised the integrity of the sport but also endangered the lives of spectators, officials, other competitors and Nelson Piquet Jr. himself. The World Motor Sport Council considers that offences of this severity merit permanent disqualification from the FIA Formula One World Championship. However, having regard to the points in mitigation mentioned above and in particular the steps taken by Renault F1 to identify and address the failings within its team and condemn the actions of the individuals involved, the WMSC has decided to suspend Renault F1’s disqualification until the end of the 2011 season. The World Motor Sport Council will only activate this disqualification if Renault F1 is found guilty of a comparable breach during that time.

So, what’s the problem? Well, for one thing, Piquet – the guy who smashed his car into the wall, the only person with the physical capacity to enact this plan, as the driver of the car – walks away. No fine, no ban, not even so much as a slapped wrist. Of course, he won’t be employable to any self-respecting racing outfit, but still, there is no formal punishment. This is a result of the immunity agreement, which is unfortunate. If someone needs immunity to tell the truth, can they really be trusted in the first place?

The second problem is the lack of any real punishment to the Renault F1 team. Remember Schumacher taking out Villeneuve in 1997 at Jerez? He was excluded from the Championship that year. Remember when Schumacher passed Damon Hill on the parade lap at the British Grand Prix in 1994, and then ignored the black flag? He was given a straight 2-race ban. Remember in 2007 when McLaren were found guilty of possessing Ferrari documents? They were given a $100 million fine and excluded from the Constructors’ Championship.

Yet, none of these crimes were anything compared to the seriousness of a driver crashing on purpose, endangering himself, other drivers and spectators, in order for his team-mate to win a race. This was not like Schumacher instinctively trying to punt his rival off the track to win the World Championship desperately in the realisation that if he didn’t, he wouldn’t get another chance. This was not like Schumacher ignoring a 5-second stop/go penalty for a trivial offence. This was not like in the case of the Spy Scandal of 2007, where a McLaren held Ferrari technical documents that meant they could potentially steal ideas to gain an unfair advantage.

No, this was a blatant attempt to steal a race relying on no technical ability, but on the fact that their driver would be certain to be at the head of the field in the event of a safety car.

And let’s remember, McLaren were punished despite the fact that the Spy Scandal had nothing to do with an institutional desire to cheat at McLaren. No, it was one individual there too, albeit not one at the top of the team.

Quite simply, Renault should have been thrown out of F1, at least for the rest of this season, possibly longer. The idea that the perpetrators of the plot in Singapore last night have left the team matters little. Yes, the team have dealt with them, but it was also the team that brought the sport into disrepute. Symonds, Briatore and Piquet all worked for Renault, and Renault have to take responsibility for the actions of their staff. They are also responsible for the power structures that existed in the team that allowed this to happen – power structures that are not replicated in any other team in the pit lane.

Now I know that many will say F1 needs Renault, we mustn’t make them run away. Rubbish. We’ve survived without them before, and we could do again. Few teams are indispensible, and Renault sure aren’t one of them. They have a place on the grid next year and as such could potentially be an attractive investment – their facilities as Enstone may not be the best, but they are solid, and the team has a history of winning (albeit with Flavio Briatore and Pat Symonds).

F1 should not be subject to the whims of manufacturers. Let them come and go as they please. But if they want to stay, they should understand the rules of the game, and the punishments for breaching such rules. That didn’t happen today, and that is bad for F1.

Tags: Formula 1, Justice, Renault
Posted in Formula 1, Sport | No Comments »

The Singapore 2008 Crash Investigation Witch-Hunt

September 15th, 2009 by Noelinho

The investigation into Nelson Piquet Jr’s crash in the Grand Prix of Singapore last year rolls on, with more details emerging every day – and, like most stories like this, with each turn, the story gets uglier.

The furore started shortly after the Hungarian Grand Prix this year, after which Nelson Piquet was sacked as Renault’s second driver. To be honest, it was a long time coming and was bot unexpected, but the revelations that followed – that Piquet was asked to purposely create a safety car situation last year in the night race in Singapore – came out of the blue and caused quite a stir.

It should be noted that questions were asked of the crash at the time. Some people had remarked that it was incredibly convenient that the crash benefited Fernando Alonso so well. Indeed, he went on to win the race – comfortably, in fact. However, it is not the details of the crash that I am interested in here. If you want more details, feel free to check out the accounts on F1 Fanatic (an awesome Formula 1 website) and on James Allen’s website.

What I am more concerned with here is the slightly concerning dribble of information slowly leaking out of how this enquiry is being dealt with. Firstly, some of the documents submitted by Nelson Piquet’s family were leaked, which was met by Renault with a writ for attempted blackmail by the Piquet family.

Then, in a move similar to that which was granted to McLaren drivers Pedro de la Rosa dn Fernando Alonso in the 2007 Spy Scandal, it transpired that Nelson Piquet Jr has been granted immunity if he promises to tell everything he knows. Martin Brundle described the 2007 case as having the feel of a witch-hunt – an accusation the FIA met with a writ themselves. However, today it transpires that Reanult’s Pat Symonds has also been granted immunity if he is willing to come clean and tell all himself. This is, apparently, because the FIA think he may not have told everything he knows (that is, assuming there is more to know).

So what is so interesting and dangerous about this? Well, the problem is that the whole case hinges on a meeting involving Piquet, Symonds and Renault F1 boss Flavio Briatore. The problem? No such offer of immunity has been made to Briatore. It looks like the FIA have already decided that Renault are guilty, or, more specifically, Flavio Briatore.

Whether that is right or wrong, that is not the way to go about things. It is well known that Flavio Briatore and Max Mosley are hardly the best of friends, and the issues with FOTA, Flavio and the FIA this season have done to help that. So, is the FIA (or just Max Mosley) out to get Flavio, come what may?

It does have all the hallmarks of a witch-hunt. But, obviously, to avoid a writ from the FIA myself, I couldn’t actually come out and actually say, “by the way, it’s a bit of a witch-hunt, isn’t it?”

So I’ll leave that to your imagination.

Edit: Two links for you: firstly, a transcript of Pat Symonds’ FIA interview in Belgium, and secondly, a piece on the rights and wrongs of immunity. An interesting read.

Tags: FIA, Formula 1, Renault
Posted in Formula 1, Sport | 1 Comment »

Pages

Noelinho’s Photostream

Noelinho's Latest Tweets

Categories