It is traditionally the time of year at which Ferrari announces its plans for the following season and all the signs are that the Italian team has now got its ducks in a row. However, there may not be an announcement in Monza because of the uncertainty surrounding the future of Fernando Alonso.
Alonso won the Singapore GP last year but now an FIA World Council has been called for September 21 to rule on whether Renault F1 was involved in race-fixing. If the team is found guilty of the offence then the FIA must decide who needs to be punished and what that punishment should be. The question therefore is whether it is possible that Fernando Alonso won the race without knowing that it had been fixed. Alonso is an intelligent individual and thus he must have known that the team’s strategy made no sense at all unless there was a Safety Car between when he stopped on lap 12 and when the rest of the field stopped, which would have been within the next five to eight laps. This was a very small window of opportunity and the probability of a Safety Car at that point of the race was minimal. This being the case Alonso and his engineers would logically have argued against such a strategy as it offered little or no chance of success. If they accepted the strategy without question one must ask why.
However, suspicion proves nothing and so unless there is direct evidence that Fernando was involved in a conspiracy to fix the race, he should escape without punishment. He may struggle to get the F1 world to accept he was innocent – because not guilty and innocent are not at all the same thing – but he will not face a ban.
This being the case, he should be available to race for Ferrari next year.
Felipe Massa is expected to be in the other car, with Giancarlo Fisichella as the team’s third driver. There are reports in Italy that Kimi Raikkonen will be released by Ferrari, a deal having been struck that suits all parties.
Raikkonen signed a three-year deal with Ferrari in the summer of 2006. This was long before any hint of a recession and it is understood that the contract was for a salary in Euros equivalent to $50m per year. A good chunk of this would go to Raikkonen’s managers, but it was still a decent wage for the Finn. It seems that there was also a bonus clause which bumped the salary up if Kimi won the World Championship. He did that at his first attempt in 2007. The bonus, plus the slide in the value of the dollar, meant that for the last two seasons Kimi is reckoned to have been paid $85m per year.
It is clear that his performances have not really warranted such a vast reward. His only victory since Spain 2008 was last week in Belgium, while team-mate Felipe Massa won five times in the same period before being injured in Hungary.
The Raikkonen contract was due to end this year but a year ago Ferrari needed Kimi to agree to help Massa in his fight for the World Championship with Lewis Hamilton. The word is that Luca di Montezemolo proposed that Kimi sacrifice a clause in the contract that guaranteed him equality with his team-mate in exchange for an additional season (2010) with the team.
This was accepted.
In the last 12 months things have changed. Ferrari needs to look more closely at its spending. In addition Fernando Alonso seems a much better option, not only because he seems more motivated than Raikkonen but also because his presence at Ferrari guarantees a major new long term sponsorship deal with Banco Santander, which is reckoned to be worth $80m a year.
The recent weeks have thus seen negotiations to find a way to get Raikkonen to agree to give up his 2010 contract. The word is that Kimi will be paid $35m NOT to race for Ferrari, plus being paid bonuses for any results that he achieves with whichever team he moves to in 2010, plus a bonus if Alonso wins the title.
This bizarre arrangement makes sense for Ferrari as it is saving $50m on Kimi’s basic salary and the team can afford to pay Alonso a sensible salary and still make a substantial saving…
joeblogsf1 
“not guilty and innocent are not at all the same thing…”
I would like you to extend this concept, because it sounds to me as: “It cannot be proved he is guilty but I know he is”
So, why (and how) you know he is guilty?
We don’t know that. But you have to admit that the strategy makes no sense at all. In F1 circles they will inevitably question why it was adopted.
So where to for KR then? WRC perhaps?
But that strategy must be due to the motor stops at the qualifying sesion, is´nt it? Alonso tried to achieve the first row of the grid that was only possible with an agresive fuel strategy.
It does not matter what happened in qualifying. He was outside the top 10 and so was able to choose his fuel load.
I like Fernando Alonso, but I agree with that he is “not guilty and innocent are not at all the same thing…”
“So, why (and how) you know he is guilty?”
He has shown both on the track and off the track (Maclaren 2007 & the Ferrari data) that he will stop at nothing to win races and championships. So it is not so difficult to believe on some level he knew that “something” was going to or had happened.
Whilst I admire his driving skills I am disappointed with his willingness to”cheat” on such a scale. For me this sort of stuff is far worse that Senna punting Prost off to guarantee his world championship.
Hi Joe,
Why has FIA got interested just recently in what happened during last year Singapore?
thanks
D
Kimi not motivated?
I think you are understanding his personality wrong.
I am not claiming to understand his personality. i am reporting what people at Ferrari seem to think.
Kimi isn’t, by any chance, managed by Bernie Ecclestone is he? 😉 BCE is just about the only person I can think of who could have negotiated such an insane price for a driver who had not won a WDC. Kimi has always had a reputation for enormous speed, but there’s no way Ferrari could have thought he would become part of their family in the way that Michael did – his personality and attitude to sponsor work was well known already.
I bet Jean Todt had young Nicholas sitting in the room taking notes as he did the deal, saying “See? This is how you make a fortune as a manager!”
Excuse me, but where do you know from what is in the contracts or not? Have you seen them? You are spreading a lot of rumours in your blog.
For you, Renault is guilty already? Interesting…
And how could Alonso go to Ferrari for 2010 when Kimi still has a contract, and Massa too? Where is he going to sit, on Kimi’s trunk?
§80m a year? Santander must have found a cash cow somewhere…excuse me, but your blog makes no sense.
Dear Hermann,
If you do not like the blog, you do not have to read it. It is your choice. I offer it free of charge with the aim of informing and entertaining. The explanation put forward is based on what information I can collect from sources that I consider to be reliable. I have only been around F1 full time for 21 years so I still have a lot to learn. Unless all the documentation is in the public domain, all a journalist can do is rely on good sources and have a good understanding of the world is which decisions are made.
As to judging Alonso I have done nothing of the sort. You choose to read it that way. Read it again with your mind open and you will see that i am simply pointing out the ins and outs of the case.
As for Santander, I think if you read a little you will find that last year the bank made a profit of €8.876bn on revenues of €31.04bn and it has assets worth a trillion dollars.
In that world €80m a year is change for the cigarette girl.
hello joe,
wherein lays the difference in Alonso spilling the McLaren beans and Piquet doing likewise with Renault yet Piquet is deemed never to be given any chances to race in f1 – because of that?
Does this plus your article not place Alonso yet again right in the middle of something really bad – on-sportsmen-like behavior – dare i say cheat?
Why is there nothing in writ re future implications for Alonso?
The backroom deal with Piquet to throw the race, and the 3-stop strategy must have been decided well in advance and would have looked less suspicious had Alonso qualified near the front as, indeed it looked like he would.
There is literally no way that Alonso could not have known something was up with the strategy decision. He will not be found guilty though because he is worth too much to Bernie (I wonder how many people will turn up to Valencia next year should Alonso receive some sort of ban?)
Nice analysis of the Kimi situation Joe – appreciated.
Surely it is not really up to the team to justify their choice of strategy to you or anyone else, unless it can be proven that it was planned with malicious intent? I get the impression (from reading your blog and the stories on grandprix.com about this incident) that even if Renault were to be cleared you would still find it a suspicious activity and that it would still thus be under a cloud.
Interesting idea that “not guilty and innocent are not the same thing” – my understanding is that innocence ought to be presumed unless someone is actively convicted of something, and that ongoing suspicions are always considered unethical.
Dear John,
Your impressions of my opinions are your business. I am simply trying to provide an informed commentary for F1 fans – absolutely free of charge…
The FIA has asked Renault to answer a charge of fixing the race thus the team is probably going to need to justify its choice of strategy. It is hardly going to walk in and say to the World Council. “Screw you, Our strategy is our business”.
I think also you may be misinterpreting the “not guilty and innocent” thing. I am not pre-judging anything, I am simply predicting how the F1 world may react in the future, based on previous experiences.
I suggest we wait and see what happens at the FIA World Council after that you can vent your righteous indignation if you do not agree with the findings.
I’d like to make Ferrari an offer…
I’ll happily not drive for them next year for just $10m. This is a saving of $25M over not having Kimi drive for them.
I can’t say fairer than that.
You know it makes sense! 😉
Alonso a better option than Kimi because he “seems” more motivated? I don’t know how one can measure motivation but perception and wishful thinking are not the same as facts. I doubt Kimi would make it into Q3 and race for podiums unless he is 100% motivated, especially this season when the cars are so close. The constant pounding about Raikkonen “not motivated, cannot develop cars, etc.” is wearing out. I could buy the financial explanation but not the motivation one.
Leigh
Ha! I’ll do it for nine million…
John
I suggest you read the comment to Ehe above about perceptions of Raikkonen’s motivations
joesawardl
“We don’t know that. But you have to admit that the strategy makes no sense at all. In F1 circles they will inevitably question why it was adopted.”
Well, that strategy was not only adopted by F. Alonso.
Webber, Coulthard and Barrichello pitted in lap 14th, (one lap before the Safety car). They chose the same “no sense strategy”.
So, according to that, they should been “involved” in this conspiracy, also.
Some Conspiracy Teory’s lovers, will start to argue Red Bull’s connection with Renault through some “insider trader”, but I’ll love to read how they connect Barrichello (and Honda) to that! :-)))))
Bslideres,
No they did not… Webber and Coulthard got into the pits after the accident but before the Safety Car was sent out. It was a clever bit of work by Red Bull and they were on the right bit of track at the time. I have not had time to look at Barrichello but I suspect it was the same. No-one else was on that strategy.
Sorry
Leigh, Joe, sorry, I’ll do it for eight million. 🙂
Joe, this is another excellent speculative patchwork of information and rumours, and it makes me (speculatively)rethink the wide spread suspicion that the Piquet clan is behind this Singapore 2008 tristeza.
Having a strong impression that Alonso seeks/needs a privileged status within his team I am wondering how this would suit Massa, by now the clear favourite of the current two Ferrari drivers. When top salaries and top positions in top teams are at stake even friendly relationships (as Massa and Alonso are supposed to have) come under threat. Add to this Massa’s recent injury and resulting uncertainties of his comeback and performance, Felipe must be feeling rather vulnerable… and maybe prone at least to help fuelling the story of Singapore 2008. He did mention it was kind of weird development of events already a year ago.
The amounts and reasoning you wrote about above there are outrageous for the real world that it is no wonder such culture makes fertile soil for anything – from insane sex scandals, to $100m fines, to teams lying about what they did talk about during a race, to (suspected) driver risking his and other people’s lives by crashing in the wall, to stewards giving a very harsh penalty (or banning some bits) today while they simply ignored the same thing yesterday, etc.
What a wonderful world!
Hi Joe – love the blog, thanks for your insight.
I suspect you may have already heard this, but I have it on very good authority from a source within the FIA, that Renault will be done, and I quote, ‘bang to rights’ and if this person running the investigation had anything to do with it (you may speculate as to who this is – its not hard) then Briatore would be ‘facing criminal charges’.
Very serious and, I suspect, technically, should see them removed from the Championship with an eye watering fine. That is…unless Bernie gets involved and perhaps Ferrari, worrying about next years driver.
Incidentally, I found your discussion of Kimi’s agreement to ‘support’ Massa and the notion of ‘equality’ amongst teamamtes very intersting. I could be totally wrong but it seems to me that since poor Felipe took a bump on the head then Kimi’s performance has increased noticeably. In your opinion, is it possible that the team was focused on Massa with regards to setup?
I suppose it matters little either way, but I have always felt that Kimi, truthfully, is twice the driver of Felipe – on his day.
If the “Alonso winning” provision in Kimi’s contract next year is correct, he is a dubious asset for another championship challenging team. Having already earned $35M, he may be happy to go to another team for less than market value – but do you want someone in your car who’s going to get big bonuses if the other guy wins? On the other hand, it would be nice to have Ferrari paying your own race win bonuses for you.
Hopefully, after a few years on $85M, the money won’t matter so much and Kimi will be determined to prove himself on the track again.
One thing that this season has shown us, with it’s constantly varying car performances amongst almost all of the teams, is that no driver can do much with a badly behaving car – and there are a lot out there who can do really well when their car is right.
One more comment on the Renault case – and Alonso’s involvement. There is probably a very wide grey area in determining his guilt.
If the following conversation took place:
Alonso : “Starting with 12 laps of fuel is crazy – I’m not going to make up many places and my stop will put me right at the back again. It would only work if there was a safety car in those three laps – and that’s very unlikely”
FB : “Don’t worry – there will be”
Alonso : “Oh – OK.”
Is Alonso guilty of conspiracy? He may well have known what was happening without being involved in it’s planning and if not, was almost certainly suspicious afterwards – but would we expect him to express those suspicions?
Renault’s strategy didn’t made sense? Well I think it did. Completely.
They had Fernando starting from P15 but they knew the car was way faster than that. If they went for the “easy” option (1-stop strategy, pitting very late) they would remain stuck in the pack for half the race. By the time the leaders pitted, they would be way ahead. There was virtually no chance of Renault scoring points in a 1-stopper, because other people ahead of them were likely to be 1-stopping too and therefore blocking them, while the 2-stoppers ran away at the front.
You could argue that a SC could come out at the right moment, like it did in Germany to help Piquet. Yes, it could. And that’s why Piquet was fuelled to make only one stop! Does it really make any sense to have your cars starting from P15 and P16 and have the same strategy with both?
In a race where a SC period was so likely and you start so much down the order, it makes full sense to split your strategies. The way they did it, Renault could benefit from a SC coming out after Alonso’s first stop, after Piquet’s only stop and after Alonso’s second stop. That’s three periods which could have helped them, in opposition to only one period if they had gone for a 1-stopper. In addition, by fuelling Alonso very short they were able to take out of the way the less-favoured tyre.
And Renault had every reason to bet on a SC, because it had already helped them to score a podium before.
So, yes, Renault’s strategy made sense. In a normal race they would score 0 points. If this strategy didn’t work they would also score 0 points. And at this point in the season, they were fighting Toyota very hard for 4th in the constructors. With both Toyotas starting ahead of them… They needed to do something.
It looks like the Alonso fans have the same response as the Schumacher fans to what they perceive to be critical of their man. How dare anyone say anything other than Michael is great. Sorry Fernando is great.
The evidence is simple. Alonso’s strategy was insane. Piquet’s crash in the race was suspicious to say the least. He did a near identical and if anything more suspicious version of the same accident on the warm up. Look at the line he took into the corner in the warm up. A club racer having done ten laps of the track having never seen it before would not have been on that line.
Assuming Renault get their usual free pass from Max no doubt following yet another threat to withdraw from Ghosn and Alonso does go to Ferrari the only logical place for Raikkonen to go is McLaren where they can give him a car that handles to his liking and a team mate with a similar driving style. I look forward to 2010 with McLaren having two oversteer drivers and Ferrari having two understeer drivers and all of them having cars they like.
joesaward,
“No they did not…”
Webber had a DNF in lap 29, and Barrichello in the same lap he pitted, so we will never know the fuel strategy they chose.
Coulthard, pitted in lap 14 and again in lap 42
Alonso, pitted in lap 12 and again in lap 41
So, no one can say they were not in the same strategy.
They can…
Joe, that comment to ehe was not visible when I posted. If that’s what Ferrari people think, fair enough, I still fail to understand how an unmotivated driver will fight for podiums and a win in a car which is most likely not among the top 3 when it comes to pure speed?
I know that people may find some of the figures in this article unbelievable and similarly the sort of bizarre contractual agreements that get made but it DOES happen in F1. I’ve been passionate about the sport for 35 years and I would imagine I know very little of what goes on inside but this sort of thing happens not infrequently (and always comes to light a few years down the line)
As for the sums of money involved, it only goes to highlight the dire straights F1 has gotten itself into in recent times. I remember the hoohar about Senna being paid $1million per race in ’93 on a race by race basis, everyone thought it was astronomical (wasnt he worth every penny though)
Its chicken feed comapred to what goes on today. F1 is a massive global business and the amount people are prepared to spend in order to win is similarly exhorbitent
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78446
Poor innocent Flav and Pat were duped by the genius that is Piquet junior and forced to go along with his plan.
Of course they seem to have forgotten in the aftermath that Piquet suggested that he was going to deliberately crash and then did. McLaren were fined $100 million for not confessing their guilt in the spy nonsense where Renault were let off because they came clean immediately they were accused even thought there was far more evidence against them. Clearly this time Renault have not come clean so we can only assume Max will issue another similar fine which in his mind people will consider to be a minimal punishment in the future.
Barrichello jumped into the pits at a moments notice too. All of those cars would have been in “pit-preempt” state – and reacted to the imminent safety car at short notice even though they had a few laps more fuel. Under last year’s rules, only cars near to the pit entrance would be able to do that since the pit lane closed as soon as the safety car was confirmed.
Ferrim is wrong. A very long fuel load would have benefited from a safety car at almost any time. A sort load only benefitted from a safety car in a 3-4 lap window – and without a safety car, he is still stuck in the pack and destined to stay there.
So now we’re starting to get an idea of Briatore and Simmonds’ defence – it was all Piquet’s idea!!! They now admit that they discussed it with Piquet, so maybe it’s the only defence they can conceivably use – and it’s actually not too bad as it does explain away quite a lot of the evidence (the meetings, the radio calls etc.). They certainly went along with it anyway by putting Alonso on that strategy. I doubt that that was Piquet’s idea. Briatore’s other defence is that he sounded upset when Piquet crashed! I just hope that these aren’t defences that they’ve been told to put up by Bernie or the FIA so that a verdict of “insufficient evidence” can once again be brought for Briatore etc. and Piquet and his engineer take the rap. I really hope not.
I always thought that Kimi got off the gas a quarter of the way into last season (2008) . My thinking was that Ferrari wanted Massa to get a championship and that car development from that point forward was better suited to Massa. Your behind the scenes contract negotiations info between Ferrari and the Robertsons only helps solidify my belief that he took a back seat. Looks like Ferrari shot themselves in the foot because Kimi had a nice points lead at the time and in the end Massa didn’t quite get there. I’d also like to add the possibility that Kimi was hired at Ferrari only to make Massa look better when he beat him but the Todt, Kimi & Dyer team got one over the Luca, Schumi, Massa & Smedley team. Thus Todt was removed Dyer was mover over but Kimi was still stronger at the start of ’08. Then Kimi had his contract re-negotiated. I’ve got nothing against Massa but Ferrari’s love affair with him is a bit of a turn off. Thoughts?