Motorsport Conspiracies

  • Thread starter Liquid
  • 138 comments
  • 19,310 views
Its not a conspiracy, it was a calculated gamble to place their cars in the best position for the win, Red Bull dont like losing and did what they could to get the win, anyone who thinks otherwise really needs to open a window and inhale some fresh oxygen, maybe go for a walk.... The only conspiracy to come from F1 at Spain is that somehow F1 got interesting momentarily until everyone realized that its Formula 1....
 
2007 McLaren-Ferrari-Renault Espionage Controversy

Okay, this is a proven conspiracy. It went like this:

2007

March
Nigel Stepney passed on confidential Ferrari documents to McLaren designer Mike Coughlan

May
Stepney is alleged to attempt to sabotage Felipe Massa's car at the Monegasque Grand Prix.

June
Italian police raid Stepney's home.

July
After an internal investigation, Stepney is sacked by Ferrari.

Trudy Coughlan takes documents to a photocopying shop. The employee noticed that those documents were confidential Ferrari material and contacted the team. Ferrari were unaware that their technical details had been stolen until the employee contacted them.

McLaren suspend Mike Coughlan.

The World Motor Sport Council convenes and rules that although McLaren are found to be in possession of stolen documents, it is not proven that it affected the outcome of the championship (up until that point mid-season) and the team escape punishment.

August
At the Hungarian Grand Prix, a falling out between Fernando Alonso and Ron Dennis leads to Alonso threatening to reveal to the FIA the true extent of McLaren's knowledge of the Ferrari documentation.

Dennis preemptively contacts the FIA saying that this will be an empty threat and Alonso has nothing substantial.

September
The FIA reopens the case following the appearance of new evidence.

Dennis says the case is being reopened after learning of the evidence and altruistically contacting the FIA. Max Mosley denies this.

Pedro de la Rosa, Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton submit statements in exchange for personal immunity. An eMail exchange between Alonso and de la Rosa is used as evidence.

McLaren are found guilty and are stripped of all current and future Constructor's points in the 2007 season and disqualified from said championship. They do not appeal the decision.

November
McLaren accuse Renault of obtaining McLaren technical drawings and information pertaining to McLaren's 2006 and 2007 cars. The source is said to be Phillip Mackreth, a former McLaren employee who had moved to Renault in time for the 2007 season.

December
At an extraordinary WMSC meeting, Renault are found guilty of a breach in code but escape punishment.

2008

March
The FIA state that since Nigel Stepney is not an FIA licence holder, they cannot internally punish him within the confides of motorsports but state that teams should not collaborate professionally with him.

Ferrari continue a personal case against Stepney

July
McLaren and Ferrari announce that they have settled all lingering tensions and acrimony. McLaren pay Ferrari's court costs and gift them a supplemental monetary amount which Ferrari use for good causes.

2009

February
The FIA lift restrictions imposed upon Nigel Stepney and Mike Coughlan with an additional statement:

If the full story came out, [Stepney and Coughlan] are two minor players and there are people who are not minor players. But the full story will probably never come out.
Click to expand...

Italian court cases against Mike Coughlan, Paddy Lowe et al are dropped in exchange for financial penalties.

2010

September
Nigel Stepney is found guilty after a plea bargain and is sentenced to 8 months in gaol. He does not serve any time.


---

A fascinating case given that drivers move teams much more publicly and therefore have a wealth of knowledge to potentially pass on; Damon Hill has spoken how his final 6 months at Williams were very frosty because the team did not want him to pass on details of their 1997 car to Arrows.

But with the engineers and designers it's a whole other ballgame and a whole other way of politicking. Three things get me with this case:

- Just how widespread at McLaren was this knowledge?

- How much did the drivers know?

The drivers were offered immunity in exchange for testimony; under a muted threat that if it was later proven the drivers had knowledge, punishment would be severe. Hamilton was called as a witness, and an eMail between de la Rosa and Alonso mentions Stepney being "the guy who said Räikönnen would stop on lap 18 in Australia. He's friendly with our designer Mike Coughlan."

- Why did Renault get away with it? Apart from the usual Briatore answer, I mean.

I'd say the bigger conspiracy is that this happens up and down the pitlane and this one just happened to become unravelled.
 
Last edited:
L8 Apex
Not sure this qualifies as a conspiracy, but it's disgusting just the same:

http://autoweek.com/article/monster...car-refuses-recognize-bobby-allisons-1971-win
Click to expand...

Quick way to solve this, if Tiny Lund won his two race in a GA that same year, and they were counted then clearly NASCAR made an error and is too big ego'd to rescind (no surprise). And what do you know Lund ran a Camaro in those two races.

Does seem quite a shame to not give it to Allison when it's counted for others, it'd be like denying any F1 car that ran the Indy 500 when it was allowed historical victory. Because it was an F1 car.
 
What's the deal with NASCAR allowing encumbered wins to stand anyway? I know that in the 90's, they'd place any offending car right in the rear of the finishing order.
 
Didn't NASCAR briefly end up rewarding him that win a few years back? Then promptly changing their minds again and putting him back at 84?


Edit: Found it. Apparently it was a mistake in the NASCAR media book.

http://www.racing-reference.info/showblog?id=2939

"In 2004, it was noted that "NASCAR's media update book" suddenly listed Allison with 85 wins. ''There had been some discussion with NASCAR about changing the record,'' historian Bob Moore said. ''Apparently the editor of the update book thought a decision had been made to give Bobby the win and printed the revised record.'' This was not the case and once noticed, Allison was reverted to 84 wins.

''As long as they don't take any wins away from me, I don't care,'' Darrell Waltrip said regarding Allison getting an extra win.

Today, all sources for career Cup wins list Tiny Lund at five wins. MRN, Jayski, CBS Sports all consistently list five wins. The same lists that have Allison at 84 wins have Lund at 5 wins. It appears the mistake in 2004 was never corrected for Lund going forward."
 
Last edited:
Carbonox
What's the deal with NASCAR allowing encumbered wins to stand anyway? I know that in the 90's, they'd place any offending car right in the rear of the finishing order.
Click to expand...

That seems so iffy. If the car isn't legal then it can't take a place, at least that's my view of it.

LMSCorvetteGT2
Does seem quite a shame to not give it to Allison when it's counted for others, it'd be like denying any F1 car that ran the Indy 500 when it was allowed historical victory. Because it was an F1 car.
Click to expand...

It seems to hinge on the unresolvable claim that the drivers always knew their non-cup cars wouldn't be eligible for a win. That said it's a real shame. In fact, it stinks.
 
TenEightyOne
It seems to hinge on the unresolvable claim that the drivers always knew their non-cup cars wouldn't be eligible for a win. That said it's a real shame. In fact, it stinks.
Click to expand...

That's not how it worked as my full quote says, Tiny Lund's wins were counted thus if non-cup cars were not eligible the Camaro he used to win in wouldn't have been. Pony cars were not considered Cup cars, hence the distinctive difference between GA and Cup. However, if a joint venture was created where all cars were eligible in that race to win despite this difference and it was counted in that regard for a driver, then it should be as well for Allison.

Allison also took home the prize money and trophy, and no one agrees with Bill France Jr, that there was a rule that dictated drivers ineligible to win if they were using the GA cars that were allowed for those specific races. And even if those notable people agreed with France Jr, it would still not make sense since Lund's victories were counted.
 
Last edited:
It's not much of a 'conspiracy' as there was no intent to harm or murder but people do believe the Senna steering arm hypothesis.

I was idly reading bits of Damon Hill's autobiography recently, just the time periods I was interested in whilst I had time to kill in a book shop. When reading the section about Imola 1994, he goes into some detail about how he believes Senna simply lost control of the car; Hill quotes the venturi effect and says that in his opinion Senna's car bottomed out and lost grip, and that when correcting the slide the car regained grip and snapped back the other way and off the circuit.

The reason he gives that it couldn't be a broken steering arm is that whilst back in the garage awaiting the second start of the race, after Lamy and Lehto's start line accident, Hill and his engineer both agreed to turn off the Williams' power steering. Hill acknowledged the known problems with the initial FW16 and the modifications made to the steering arm to make the drivers more comfortable and states that if his steering arm could withstand 53 laps of intense load without any power steering, there isn't any way that Senna's steering arm could have failed given that Senna's car still had power steering.

Additionally, Hill says that the modifications made to Imola played a factor in Senna losing control. In an attempt to smoothen the track, the engineers who worked on Imola actually made the track bumpier on the inside of Tamburello. Hill says he and some other drivers took the slightly longer and slower outside line, an extra few tenths per lap, because it was smoother and didn't result in the car buffeting up and down as much. Senna stuck to the inside line and the bumpier surface was one of the reasons given for the car bottoming out, resulting in the mentioned venturi effect.

Lastly, Hill cites that a steering arm failure would result not in a loss of grip but in a total loss of steering control and this does not match up with the evidence and footage available. Had the steering arm broken, Senna's hands and wheel would have reacted far differently than they did.

I thought it made for very interesting reading.
 
Liquid
It's not much of a 'conspiracy' as there was no intent to harm or murder but people do believe the Senna steering arm hypothesis.

I was idly reading bits of Damon Hill's autobiography recently, just the time periods I was interested in whilst I had time to kill in a book shop. When reading the section about Imola 1994, he goes into some detail about how he believes Senna simply lost control of the car; Hill quotes the venturi effect and says that in his opinion Senna's car bottomed out and lost grip, and that when correcting the slide the car regained grip and snapped back the other way and off the circuit.

The reason he gives that it couldn't be a broken steering arm is that whilst back in the garage awaiting the second start of the race, after Lamy and Lehto's start line accident, Hill and his engineer both agreed to turn off the Williams' power steering. Hill acknowledged the known problems with the initial FW16 and the modifications made to the steering arm to make the drivers more comfortable and states that if his steering arm could withstand 53 laps of intense load without any power steering, there isn't any way that Senna's steering arm could have failed given that Senna's car still had power steering.

Additionally, Hill says that the modifications made to Imola played a factor in Senna losing control. In an attempt to smoothen the track, the engineers who worked on Imola actually made the track bumpier on the inside of Tamburello. Hill says he and some other drivers took the slightly longer and slower outside line, an extra few tenths per lap, because it was smoother and didn't result in the car buffeting up and down as much. Senna stuck to the inside line and the bumpier surface was one of the reasons given for the car bottoming out, resulting in the mentioned venturi effect.

Lastly, Hill cites that a steering arm failure would result not in a loss of grip but in a total loss of steering control and this does not match up with the evidence and footage available. Had the steering arm broken, Senna's hands and wheel would have reacted far differently than they did.

I thought it made for very interesting reading.
Click to expand...

Newey says pretty much the same thing in "How to Build a Racing Car", a book that's well worth reading.
 
TenEightyOne
Newey says pretty much the same thing in "How to Build a Racing Car", a book that's well worth reading.
Click to expand...
True. But Newey also admits partial responsibility, since he designed a car that was aerodynamically unstable, and also bore some responsibility for the fact the steering column was weakened and cracked, the steering wheel itself departing company from the car during the accident.

He also recounts Senna's firm opinion that Schumacher's car was sporting traction control, and Benetton had bent the rules in several ways over the course of that season.
 
Dotini
He also recounts Senna's firm opinion that Schumacher's car was sporting traction control
Click to expand...

I think on that account, after he retired on lap one at Aida, Senna stood at the first corner for the rest of the race listening to the cars acceleration, trying to detect if any of the cars had traction control.

The same was also said to have happened, by Williams engineers, at the French Grand Prix after Schumacher made an absolutely stunning start with no wheel spin from 3rd and rocketed between the two Williamses.
 
Liquid
It's not much of a 'conspiracy' as there was no intent to harm or murder but people do believe the Senna steering arm hypothesis.
Click to expand...


I was one of those who always thought the steering wheel collapse was one of those silly conspiracy theories like the ones which believe Senna was shot by a sniper or that he fainted because he was holding his breath. After visiting Senna's memorial at Imola though I thought it was worth reading a bit more about his death, and among other things, I didn't know that "The Italian Court of Appeal, on 13 April 2007, stated the following in the verdict numbered 15050: "It has been determined that the accident was caused by a steering column failure. This failure was caused by badly designed and badly executed modifications. The responsibility of this falls on Patrick Head, culpable of omitted control." Even being found responsible for Senna's accident, Head was not arrested because in Italy, the statute of limitation for manslaughter is 7 years and 6 months, and the final verdict was pronounced 13 years after the accident."
So I guess people believe the steering column hypothesis because there's an actual trial verdict about it. Looking for the reasons behind said verdict, I came across some videos which analyze the movement of the yellow button placed on the steering wheel of the '94 Williams. In this one, the expected path of the yellow button has been dotted in green:



For a comparison, the previous lap through Tamburello:





Last comparison, live TV feed from qualifying, onboard from 1:25:




From reports on the trial:
Today in court Alboreto again told magistrate Antonio Costanzo "You don't go off on that bend (Tamburello) unless there is a mechanical failure." He also stated that on circuits like Imola the stresses and strains subjected on the steering column would cause flexing -- "in the order of two or three millimetres."
Senna had already realised that something was wrong at the previous bend, Alboreto claimed, because he had lifted his foot on and off the accelerator. He later told reporters: "I'm even more convinced that it was a technical problem that caused Senna to crash now I have seen the video." "There is a tape which shows the flexing movement of the steering wheel was two to three centimetres. No steering wheel moves a few centimetres. "Should the court accept this film as evidence it will prove that something was wrong with Senna's car.
Acting for Frank Williams and Patrick Head, lawyer Oreste Dominioni has asked for a testimony from David Coulthard who at the time of Senna's death was a test driver for the Williams team. Coulthard gave a written statement saying that the amount of movement seen on the steering wheel of Senna's car was normal.
Coulthard's statement is in direct contradiction to that given by Alboreto. Alboreto told reporters: "Coulthard has the prospect of a long career in Formula One."

I'm not here trying to convince anybody that a steering column failure was the reason for the crash, because I'm not entirely convinced myself. Pictures after the accident show the steering column was snapped, whether it happened before or during the crash, nobody knows apparently. I believe the movement of the steering wheel before the accident isn't that normal and I think it's worth sharing those analyses for those interested in the subject.


Liquid
I was idly reading bits of Damon Hill's autobiography recently, just the time periods I was interested in whilst I had time to kill in a book shop. When reading the section about Imola 1994, he goes into some detail about how he believes Senna simply lost control of the car; Hill quotes the venturi effect and says that in his opinion Senna's car bottomed out and lost grip, and that when correcting the slide the car regained grip and snapped back the other way and off the circuit.
The reason he gives that it couldn't be a broken steering arm is that whilst back in the garage awaiting the second start of the race, after Lamy and Lehto's start line accident, Hill and his engineer both agreed to turn off the Williams' power steering. Hill acknowledged the known problems with the initial FW16 and the modifications made to the steering arm to make the drivers more comfortable and states that if his steering arm could withstand 53 laps of intense load without any power steering, there isn't any way that Senna's steering arm could have failed given that Senna's car still had power steering.
Click to expand...

During the trial in 1997 Hill himself stated that: "I don't remember what happened exactly, why they told me to turn it off. The team asked me to turn the power steering off and I did that. Obviously that was to make sure thing would be all right on my car, I didn't ask for a reason, I just did what I was told to do at the time."
Also, the race wasn't red-flagged after the Lamy-Lehto crash at the start, the safety car was deployed and race continued behind it. Which means the only restart and the modification happened after the Senna crash. This doesn't prove anything but it's a detail worth considering.

Liquid
Additionally, Hill says that the modifications made to Imola played a factor in Senna losing control. In an attempt to smoothen the track, the engineers who worked on Imola actually made the track bumpier on the inside of Tamburello. Hill says he and some other drivers took the slightly longer and slower outside line, an extra few tenths per lap, because it was smoother and didn't result in the car buffeting up and down as much. Senna stuck to the inside line and the bumpier surface was one of the reasons given for the car bottoming out, resulting in the mentioned venturi effect.
Click to expand...



If the bumpiness of Tamburello was the main cause (it was indeed very bumpy given the speed), it would've been interesting to hear from Hill about setup differences between him and Senna, since both of them (and Schumacher as well) took the same line through there during the lap of the accident.



He appears to experience bottoming out as well, and judging by the movement of the front left tyre, he corrects a snap of oversteer at least a couple of times.



An interesting quote from Newey in 2011: "The honest truth is that no one will ever know exactly what happened. There's no doubt the steering column failed and the big question was whether it failed in the accident or did it cause the accident? It had fatigue cracks and would have failed at some point. There is no question that its design was very poor. However, all the evidence suggests the car did not go off the track as a result of steering column failure... If you look at the camera shots, especially from Michael Schumacher's following car, the car didn't understeer off the track. It oversteered which is not consistent with a steering column failure. The rear of the car stepped out and all the data suggests that happened. Ayrton then corrected that by going to 50% throttle which would be consistent with trying to reduce the rear stepping out and then, half-a-second later, he went hard on the brakes. The question then is why did the rear step out? The car bottomed much harder on that second lap which again appears to be unusual because the tyre pressure should have come up by then – which leaves you expecting that the right rear tyre probably picked up a puncture from debris on the track. If I was pushed into picking out a single most likely cause that would be it."
 
marco89IT
An interesting quote from Newey in 2011: "The honest truth is that no one will ever know exactly what happened. There's no doubt the steering column failed and the big question was whether it failed in the accident or did it cause the accident? It had fatigue cracks and would have failed at some point. There is no question that its design was very poor. However, all the evidence suggests the car did not go off the track as a result of steering column failure... If you look at the camera shots, especially from Michael Schumacher's following car, the car didn't understeer off the track. It oversteered which is not consistent with a steering column failure. The rear of the car stepped out and all the data suggests that happened. Ayrton then corrected that by going to 50% throttle which would be consistent with trying to reduce the rear stepping out and then, half-a-second later, he went hard on the brakes. The question then is why did the rear step out? The car bottomed much harder on that second lap which again appears to be unusual because the tyre pressure should have come up by then – which leaves you expecting that the right rear tyre probably picked up a puncture from debris on the track. If I was pushed into picking out a single most likely cause that would be it."
Click to expand...

And that all seems the most likely cause - Senna was pushing hard despite the tyres not being up to pressure because new blood Schumacher was all over him. The car bottomed out due to that (the rules regarding ride heights weren't set then) and the car bounced off rear-first. The give in the steering wheel is partly due to some natural flex in the system and the effect of turning tyres under load - think of driving your own car with two nearly-flat fronts, multiplied by the weight of downforce and the G of rounding Tamburello.
 
Now that a significant amount of time and one full season has passed, what are people's thoughts on Abu Dhabi 2021?
 
Michael Masi had way too much pressure on him from both sides and ended up making one of the dumbest calls of all time because of it.

My favorite conspiracy was that Latifi was secretly on RB's payroll and crashed on purpose, teamLH never ceases to amaze me.
 
Last edited:
Veinz
Michael Masi had way too much pressure on him from both sides and ended up making one of the dumbest calls of all time because of it.

My favorite conspiracy was that Latifi was secretly on RB's payroll and crashed on purpose, teamLH never ceases to amaze me.
Click to expand...
In many ways I can feel sorry for Masi. 2 petulant children going at you in the radio in a high pressure situation with other things going on as well. Regardless of what he did it would have been deemed the wrong call.

If he had just once done that in another race (the not unlapping but) then he may have got away with only a little egg on his face because he would have precedent but even so.

Agreed with the Latifi stuff though, that theorising was just plain stupid, no excuses.
 
The "Third World" Racing Rovers

In the 1983 British Saloon Car Championship, the first year of the Group A regs that preceded Supertouring, the works Austin Rover Group team consisting of Tom Walkinshaw Racing and their trio of Rover Vitesses (or SD1s) dominated the top class (there were only 3 classes in 1983), winning all 11 races with Steve Soper winning the title outright from team-mate Peter Lovett by 5 points (68-63). Only the middle class Champion Andy Rouse in his Alfa Romeo managed to split the TWR Rovers in the outright standings, outscoring Jeff Allam by 8 points and just 2 behind Lovett. Such was the extent of the TWR Rovers' dominance that their nearest challenger in their class was Tony Lanfranchi's Opel Monza with only a quarter of the amount of points Soper scored and only 16th overall outright.

Job done, right? Well, no.

During the 7th round of the Championship at Donington Park, Frank Sytner of the BMW team protested the TWR Rovers over the size of their rear wheel arch inserts. The claims that the TWR Rovers' rear wheel-arches were over-sized and non-homologated parts were included in their engines, suspicions suggested the inclusion of Volvo rockers as used on the TR8 rally cars using the same basic V8 engine. The counter claim was that the covers had been ‘found’ at the Solihull factory and used in good will. TWR attempted to argue that there was such a thing as an Africa market SD1 with larger wheel arches to cope with mud, hence the nickname ''Third World Racing". The protests continued into the following two races but then appeared to die down.

For now.

The protests and scrutineering continued into the 1984 season and the matter was eventually taken to a Tribunal of Enquiry, chaired by veteran legal counsel Lord Hartley Shawcross. The result was the RAC disqualified the Rover team entirely over bodywork irregularities and engine installation issues, handing the 1983 title to Rouse, by which time, it was July 1984, over a year after Sytner's initial protest. The Austin Rover Group immediately withdrew all their entries (including those in the lower classes) from the Championship (by which time, 6 races had taken place in 1984) and all their points were redistributed. The TWR Rover trio were allowed to keep all their points from 1983 though, similar to Michael Schumacher in the 1997 F1 season.

Tom Walkinshaw did make a one-off guest appearance in one of his Rovers in 1985 at Brands Hatch and won, with Jeff Allam repeating that feat in 1986, but otherwise, the damage to the championship's reputation and those of all else concerned was done and the repercussions continued into 1985 and 1986 with the BSCC losing entries left, right and centre until it was changed to its current name of the British Touring Car Championship for the 1987 season. Ironically, Andy Rouse won the 1984 title in his own Rover Vitesse that was legal and the car would race in the series until the end of the 1988 season. The biggest loser out of this whole sorry saga though was Steve Soper who was destined never to win the title in his domestic tin-top series though he did go on to win the Japanese title in 1995.

The recent passing of Alan Minshaw, who was the bottom class Champion in 1983 and ended up as the outright Runner-up after the Rover exclusion, brought this to my attention. To dominate a championship to the point of taking a clean sweep of the race wins and then lose it all several months into the following season because it turned out you were running illegal parts on your cars the whole time makes for a rather glaring and embarrassing failure. At least TWR were able to rebuild their reputation running the works Volvo team in the 1990s and ARG were able to narrowly prevent a Vauxhall clean sweep in 2001 when they returned as a works team under the MG Rover moniker, with the win in question coming, somewhat appropriately, at Brands Hatch!

Though Sytner had driven for Rover in 1982 and had fallen out with Tom Walkinshaw so it's safe to say he had an axe to grind...

For good measure, TWR Rover protested the BMWs of Sytner and Hans-Joachim Stuck and to further complicate matters, some websites claim the TWR Rovers were excluded from the last 7 rounds of the 1983 season with their wins in those races going to Sytner, Stuck, Charles Sawyer-Hoare's Rover and Dave Brodie's Mitsubishi and others still crediting Soper, Lovett and Allam as sharing in the original clean sweep.

Truth be told, none of the sources I had found pertaining to the exclusion of the TWR Rovers from the 1983 BSCC had said anything about Sytner's grudge or his having driven for Rover in 1982 and fallen out with Walkinshaw. To add further irony to the story, ARG could have been contenders for a title by legitimate means in 1984 as the MG Metro Turbos of Patrick Watts and Robin Brundle had won 4 of the first 6 races and scored 56 points between them in the middle class at the time of their withdrawal.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back