Today's big news is the departure of Flavio Briatore and Pat Symonds from the Renault team, coupled with the company's statement that it will not contest the allegations of race fixing at the WMSC hearing. Reading between the lines, it seems that Renault has established that Piquet Jr was indeed asked to crash in the Singapore GP and that the two team leaders involved have been shown the door for putting the company in such an uncomfortable position.
Nelson Piquet Jr and Fernando Alonso
As I have said before, I found the story hard to believe initially but events have proved me wrong. Every day has revealed facts that seemed to confirm the Piquets' allegations and now we have little option but to believe them. It remains only to see what penalty the WMSC will impose and speculation explodes in the comments to Keith Collantine's article on the matter.
If I may look on the bright side, however, Renault's actions seem to indicate that the company wants to stay in F1. To have dumped those responsible makes it clear that the company had no part in the scheme and takes as dim a view of it as does the FIA; it also raises the possibility of the WMSC taking the "full disclosure" route to treating the case leniently, as happened in the hearing on McLaren documents in the Renault team's possession. In fact, it looks to me as if Renault executives have already talked to the FIA and worked out the best way forward with them. Firing Briatore and Symonds would be the first and most obvious step in a process that will allow the WMSC to keep the team in the sport with a penalty much less than could be applied.
We shall see. In the meantime, it is worth considering the fact that strategists within a team were able to construct so devious a plan, especially as it worked exactly as intended. I am somewhat in awe of the calculations that must have gone into the scheme and wonder whether it points out weaknesses in the F1 regulations that need to be attended to. The end of re-fueling, due next year, should lessen the opportunities for such underhand planning but the continued use of safety cars must surely be questioned.
I have said before that the safety car is an unnecessary and unfair addition to the sport, that clearing up after accidents can be handled in better ways without bunching up the field, but the Renault/Singapore affair shows that it is too easily used by those with a mind to arrange race results to suit themselves. Ideally, GPs should have as little interruption as possible so that positions hard fought for are not negated by the interruption of such things as safety cars.
Hopefully, we are seeing the end of the era in which strategy formulated on the pit wall wins and loses races. As admirable as brilliant strategy may be, it is not racing and the drivers should be free to decide for themselves how best to improve their positions. A driver like Prost, who paced himself in order to be in the best shape towards the end of a race, deserves any successes he has as a result; there is less value in a win constructed by the strategy of a man sitting in the pits, however.
It is a team sport, yes, but there are some things that are best left to the drivers alone. Once out on the track, he is the man on the spot and his race should be decided on his decisions only. That is how it was before the advent of pit-to-car radios, refueling and safety cars. A team could cheat in the design of the car, clever evasions of the rules and team orders but there was never any possibility of arranging events in the race to ensure a victory.
We should remember that the drivers' championship was the cause of F1's birth, that for many years it was the only award being competed for. The teams were eventually given recognition of their efforts in the constructors' championship but it has always been and remains the driver's crown that matters most. If the team is able to help or hinder through race strategy, the award becomes somehow devalued, as if the driver needed help to achieve it.
And the safety car shuffles races so that true excellence and skill can be left without reward. Away with it, I say.