Red Bull and Ferrari to lead rebellion against FIA rules

What are the FIA going to do? Try to get the two main title contenders thrown out of the championship?
They have the FIA by the short and curlies. Even with demo tyres unlimited running would be an advantage, throw in the 2014 engine when that's ready and see if Brawn can still bite his lip. It's less illegal to do that so they would have to receive less of a "punishment" than Mercedes did.

A Ferrari spokesman: "How can a reprimand be enough to punish a team that struggled at the Spanish Grand Prix, tested and then won in Monaco? No one knew about the test, yet the tribunal does not seem to have investigated why not and what exactly went on. No wonder the teams are angry. They have had enough of the FIA. The threats might be empty at the moment but the fact that these conversations are taking place shows that no one is happy with [Jean] Todt or the FIA. The crunch is coming and everyone wonders when and how. Maybe this is the time."

What are the FIA going to do? Try to get the two main title contenders thrown out of the championship?
They have the FIA by the short and curlies. Even with demo tyres unlimited running would be an advantage, throw in the 2014 engine when that's ready and see if Brawn can still bite his lip.

I have to say I agree with them. All those moaning about Red Bull breaking rules. They have never been found guilty of anything. Yet Mercedes have, and get let off lightly. They should of been banned from running in the next 3 Grand Prix's practice sessions. to even up the time.

'should have', but yes I agree the penalty was a total joke and an insult to the other teams.

A "spokesman". Who?
Anyway, guess Ferrari has forgotten they made their own test at Barcelona, just prior the GP at the same track, after struggling with tires, and won easily with a completely new strategy.

Good/bad faith was significant in how IT ruled. It would be significant also next time a similar case is brought to them.

Pfft. They know nothing of the crunch.

It was light, but since half of the problem was within the FIA I don't think they were in the best position to throw out a big penalty. Merc exploited the rules for sure but successfully argued they acted in good faith.

Because the FIA, the governing body, the people who make the rules cleared them to do so. Not once but twice. It was 'private' not 'secret'.

So tomorrow, if a police officier told you to do a hold up, you will do that ?

I'm probably wrong but Mercedes merely took advantage of an ailing Pirelli situation, they didn't go out to make a mockery of the sport. If Red Bull and Ferrari do the same it will simply be a flagrant breach of the regulations. The circumstances are so different. Good luck to them, though.

Right now the precedent for illegal testing is to basically just pay an admin fee. Everyone is just speculating on what would happened if another team was to do the same again, that's why it's good for them to keep poking the issue until clear lines are drawn.

Right now the precedent for illegal testing is to basically just pay an admin fee. Everyone is just speculating on what would happened if another team was to do the same again, that's why it's good for them to keep poking the issue until clear lines are drawn.

Right now the precedent for illegal testing is to basically just pay an admin fee. Everyone is just speculating on what would happened if another team was to do the same again, that's why it's good for them to keep poking the issue until clear lines are drawn.

End of story.

If they do this they are dumber than they look. Where are they going to get the tyres from? And how are they going to argue good faith before the tribunal when there is a tribunal decision, a precedent, which explicitly says you can‘t test with your current car?

I say to them: go on, do it! I dare you! A nice lengthy ban for them would open up the title race rather nicely.

However the reality is they won‘t do it. This is a bullshit story, placed in the Times as a way of harranging the FIA.

That would be wonderful to see on so many levels. Sadly even Christian Horner's dogs probably understand what a ridiculous idea it is, so it won't happen.
Anyone who thinks the result would be missing a young driver's test...I have no words.

Oh, so you think they'd trade a test where they are free to pursue what they wish with a blind tyre test on irrelevant tyres?

Why would they get a ban?

That is the point they're making - breaking the testing ban gets you a reprimand and exclusion from the young driver's test. That is the precident.

Indeed. And absolute idiocy, if true. The whole basis of the reprimand meted out to Mercedes was that it was accepted that Mercedes had been acting in good faith because it had been advised by Charlie (who'd consulted the FIA's lawyers) that the test would be within the rules. It's now clear that such tests are not within the rules, neither Ferrari nor Red Bull can possibly claim to be acting in good faith.

It was clear that it was not within the rules. I can't understand how the hell you can think that test with current car and current tyres in secret can be within the rules.

An argument that cannot now be used by any other team. The FIA/IT would have a field day with 151© if RBR were to go ahead with this 'stunt'.

The Times story looks like BS.

Christian Horner is a very whiney man.

No person with an open mind would ever post something like that. They know there is no end.

They are really afraid of Mercedes aren't they?

Edited by 1Devil1, 24 June 2013 - 12:09.

If they do this they are dumber than they look. Where are they going to get the tyres from? And how are they going to argue good faith before the tribunal when there is a tribunal decision, a precedent, which explicitly says you can‘t test with your current car?

I say to them: go on, do it! I dare you! A nice lengthy ban for them would open up the title race rather nicely.

However the reality is they won‘t do it. This is a bullshit story, placed in the Times as a way of harranging the FIA.

Only people with closed minds keep denying a simple truth.

I'm game. Please tell me the simple truth of this matter.

Edited by trogggy, 24 June 2013 - 12:19.

I'll have a go.

Merc had a go-ahead from the FIA to run their 2013 car. That's why the Tribunal gave a small penalty.
Any other team that runs a 2013 car does it without that go-ahead, and will demonstrably be sticking 2 fingers up at the rules and the FIA. The penalty would be on that basis.

Edit: End of story.

Nice try, but that was neither simple or true. Actually, you claim no less than 4 different things in those two sentences and none of them are known to be true and none of them are simple.

Nice try, but that was neither simple or true. Actually, you claim no less than 4 different things in those two sentences and none of them are known to be true and none of them are simple.

So which parts do you not agree with?

Edited by ardbeg, 24 June 2013 - 12:32.

Something had to happen as it is to close at the front end of the grid. Red Bull and Ferrari need to catch up to / maintain parity with Mercedes. What if they just show up at the YDT with their top drivers?

Something had to happen as it is to close at the front end of the grid. Red Bull and Ferrari need to catch up to / maintain parity with Mercedes. What if they just show up at the YDT with their top drivers?

I'll have a go.

Merc had a go-ahead from the FIA to run their 2013 car. That's why the Tribunal gave a small penalty.
Any other team that runs a 2013 car does it without that go-ahead, and will demonstrably be sticking 2 fingers up at the rules and the FIA. The penalty would be on that basis.

Edit: End of story.

Its a long story. This particular part of that story started with me reacting on someone claiming that his post marked the end of the story. He, or maybe it is a she, claimed that there is some simple truth's in here that we should all accept and then never discuss or think about it again. Well, unless we want to use the facts and truth's to establish new facts, new truth's, when a similar story appears. I then claimed that his, or hers, arguments did not, in fact, mark the end of the story.

What parts I agree with is therefore irrelevant.

Which go-ahead? an advice found in an email of a person which is not allowed to judge over such things.? If everything was crystal clear and they had permission why did they receive a penalty?

Which go-ahead? an advice found in an email of a person which is not allowed to judge over such things.? If everything was crystal clear and they had permission why did they receive a penalty?

Well that just seems like an argument for argument's sake to me. You're basically saying his/her version isn't true, without actually saying why.

No, to understand you have to trace the particlar sub-discussion to it's source. If you don't, then it is you that are argumenting for the arguments sake.

I'm just trying to establish your viewpoint on the thread subject. It's clear that you object to the term "end of story", which is fair enough (although I would say it's just a turn of phrase), but what isn't clear is if/why you disagree with the summary trogggy posted?