Red Bull and Ferrari to lead rebellion against FIA rules
#101
Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:56
It's really no surprise Formula One is in the state it is in if the fans on this board are in any way representative of the whole fanbase. As pathetic as the teams are.
Advertisement
#102
Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:56
Two possibilities:
- They won't get any tyres (most likely)
- Somehow they get them and practice. The FIA invites them to the International Tribunal where they'll be handed a pretty heavy sentence (race bans, 150 points deduction or something like that) because they - unlike Mercedes - have not handled "in good faith", according to the Tribunal.
Who would know if the drivers wore disguised helmets? Thats Mercedes definition of 'good faith'!
Edited by halifaxf1fan, 24 June 2013 - 13:01.
#103
Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:59
I did not necessarily disagree...
That wasn't disagreement?...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.
In other news the sky isn't blue and the Pope is an orthodox rabbi.
#104
Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:04
Read the verdictSpot on.
If Mercedes did nothing wrong, and if Mercedes had a agreement of the FIA, why they had a penalty ?
In summary: Mercedes thought they had permission, and the Tribunal found that they had good reason to think so. The fault here lies with the FIA's ambiguous communication. That's why they are not punished for the test as such, and got off with a reprimand.
The Tribunal concluded however that while the test was conducted "in good faith"- as the Tribunal puts it - Mercedes got some unfair advantage from the test. Excluding them from the YDT is a way to counterbalance that unfair advantage.
#105
Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:06
What's been clarified is that it wasn't Whiting or his FIA lawyers right to give Merc the test approval.
It was a tri-parte mess up.
RBR/Ferrari won't carry out this nonsensical threat because the rule has been clarified and they won't get approval from Whiting anymore.
#106
Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:08
Horner has been guilty of bending technical regulations and all the FIA did was to ask them to remove whatever technical infringement from their car with no subsequent punishment. I didn't hear Horner complain then or did he.
#107
Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:08
I think that if Vettel and Webber show up at Silverstone - with 9 other teams and a lot of journalists around - they will be recognised before they put their helmets on or the moment they would put them off. And if they arrive already with their helmets on and simply don't take them off at all during and after the test, I think that'll raise some suspicionsWho would know if the drivers wore disguised helmets? Thats Mercedes definition of 'good faith'!
#108
Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:14
#109
Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:14
Read the verdict
In summary: Mercedes thought they had permission, and the Tribunal found that they had good reason to think so. The fault here lies with the FIA's ambiguous communication. That's why they are not punished for the test as such, and got off with a reprimand.
The Tribunal concluded however that while the test was conducted "in good faith"- as the Tribunal puts it - Mercedes got some unfair advantage from the test. Excluding them from the YDT is a way to counterbalance that unfair advantage.
finally, someone who can interpret the verdict.
#110
Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:16
More than two can play this game now,i really hope.
Edited by Boxerevo, 24 June 2013 - 13:16.
#111
Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:17
finally, someone who can interpret the verdict.
Not really that difficult. Though as I neither love nor hate Mercedes, its easier to think clearly.
#112
Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:18
Mercedes - and people who still say they did nothing wrong. Highly entertaining, but alas, Merc got away with murder IMHO because they were very clever. It shouldnt really be a surprise to anyone that the other teams are furious at that verdict.
Ferrari - still in shock that the FIA didnt engineer it in their favour somehow,
Red Bull - sore looses who have spent the last 3 years pushing the rule book to its limit only to find out they are still rank amateurs when it comes to facing the likes of Ross Brawn.
#113
Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:20
If I had a F1 team, I would already had plans to have a third party tire manufacturer fabricate test tires that would emulate to some degree the current tires and then run the 2011 car day and night at my test track. Even if the tires are not identical to Pirelli's, the value of this data would be tremendous to calibrate the wind tunnel and tune the CFD models.
Edited by fabr68, 24 June 2013 - 13:22.
#114
Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:21
Not really, Pirelli stated it is not bound by that set of rules as a supplier.
I would love to see how this pans out. It seems you can have a 1.000km private test if you skip the YDT. I even think Ferrari would allow RB to test at Mugello or Fiorano.;)
Red Bull has the A1 ring, they don't need Ferrari's circuits haha
#115
Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:26
#116
Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:28
If you look at the article it admits half way through that Ferrari are not thinking of going so far as to run an illegal test, so it would only be Red Bull.
If the FIA writes to Pirelli telling them that they can't supply tyres for Red Bull's illegal test, quoting the clauses in the FIA/Pirelli contract about ensuring full sporting equality etc, pointing out they have already been reprimanded for the same thing, and threatening to fine Pirelli $100m if they do so, backed up with the threat of a civil lawsuit for breach of contract if they refuse to pay the fine, then what will Red Bull do? Buy in some tyres from Bridgestone or Hankook or Goodyear?
If so the advantage they'll get from their illegal running will be rather marginal - they could only really do stuff that they could have done at the factory on a test bench. Any aero work would be invalidated by the irrelevance of the tyres. Therefore the FIA wouldn't need to do much more than ban them for a race or two, or dock them maybe 50 constructors' points plus 25 points each for the drivers, to make Red Bull wish they had not bothered.
Surely the argument about full sporting equity would mean Red Bull WOULD get the test, not wouldn't?! Seriously Red Reni...
#117
Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:30
#118
Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:32
Words (as emails) are useless, facts are important...will they raise the game in another court ? will they quite Formula 1 ? will they cheat and also put a 2013 car with Alonso & Massa and call it a "Pirelli test" ?...whatever they do i'm interested to know, but if they chose to do "nothing" i'll be disgusted.
#119
Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:33
I think you're mixing up 'would' and 'should'.Love how it's the same people in this thread arguing that RBR and Ferrari should be banned/disqualified if they do this are the same people in the Mercedes thread who argued they did nothing wrong and aren't guilty even though they were proven to be.
Advertisement
#120
Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:45
Read the verdict
In summary: Mercedes thought they had permission, and the Tribunal found that they had good reason to think so. The fault here lies with the FIA's ambiguous communication. That's why they are not punished for the test as such, and got off with a reprimand.
The Tribunal concluded however that while the test was conducted "in good faith"- as the Tribunal puts it - Mercedes got some unfair advantage from the test. Excluding them from the YDT is a way to counterbalance that unfair advantage.
So Mercedes didn't have to be punished. It's FIA fault at 100%. The unfair advantage Mercedes got was because of the FIA ambiguous communication. After said this, i can't understand how you can think do a test with current tyres and current car could be allowed.
I understand Ferrari and Red Bull, they have been screwed, even if it's a little advantage.
If Mercedes have a dominant weekend at Silverstone, the FIA will be in trouble.
Edited by Massa, 24 June 2013 - 13:46.
#121
Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:47
#122
Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:47
#123
Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:53
People do realise the reason Mercedes some how got "away" with this it's because the FIA ( Charlie Whiting and FIA lawyer) and Pirelli ( it was a Pirelli test) were also "guilty" as well? If Ferrari or/and Red Bull do test on their own, they will get at least a 100M fines.
Okay Jean, Thanks, but can i make a suggestion ? If you communicate that to Luca & Dieter could you do so in an email please, rather than via telephone, oh and be sure to CC everyone,
#124
Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:09
What test? Where did I say what?So Mercedes didn't have to be punished. It's FIA fault at 100%. The unfair advantage Mercedes got was because of the FIA ambiguous communication. After said this, i can't understand how you can think do a test with current tyres and current car could be allowed.
#125
Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:12
What if they just show up at the YDT with their top drivers?
The FIA delegate at the test will tell the current drivers to scram. And if Red Bull or Ferrari defy him and put a current race driver in the car and send him out, the FIA delegate will report them to the stewards for a breach of Article 22.4(h)(i), which covers the rookie test, and stipulates: "No driver who has competed in more than two F1 World Championship races may take part in this test"
#126
Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:14
Why doesn't Red Bull (or any other team) just give Pirelli a 2013 car to use as they see fit?
Why don't you give me £1m?
Same reason, I suppose.
#127
Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:20
Why doesn't Red Bull (or any other team) just give Pirelli a 2013 car to use as they see fit?
Mercedes did and see all the nonsense that came out of that
any way Redbull are denying they ever said they will do a private test of their own.
Redbull deny allegations of private test
Edited by Fangiola, 24 June 2013 - 14:26.
#128
Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:25
Why doesn't Red Bull (or any other team) just give Pirelli a 2013 car to use as they see fit?
That's what they should have done by Montreal, latest. They screwed that up.
#129
Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:27
The FIA delegate at the test will tell the current drivers to scram. And if Red Bull or Ferrari defy him and put a current race driver in the car and send him out, the FIA delegate will report them to the stewards for a breach of Article 22.4(h)(i), which covers the rookie test, and stipulates: "No driver who has competed in more than two F1 World Championship races may take part in this test"
The FIA should allow current drivers test at the rookie test then.
#130
Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:29
The FIA should allow current drivers test at the rookie test then.
why?
#131
Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:34
http://www.motorspor...-mercedes-test/Red Bull denies plot to mimic Mercedes test
According to Red Bull's Dr Helmut Marko, the team isn't going to break the rules
Jun.24 (GMM) Red Bull on Monday was quick to officially deny reports it is considering breaking the rules as a counter-punch to the 'test-gate' scandal verdict.
According to The Times, the world champion team is reportedly so furious about Mercedes' lenient penalties that it is considering boycotting next month's young drivers test at Silverstone.
In its place, Red Bull - and possibly also Ferrari - would reportedly stage their own private, three-day test, in a directly confrontational move against the FIA, who might be hard pressed to issue penalties beyond the kind of benign 'reprimand' dealt to Mercedes.
But Red Bull's Dr Helmut Marko told Sport Bild on Monday: "Of course we wouldn't break the rules."
However, Marko made clear Red Bull's view that banning Mercedes from the Silverstone test next month is hardly a proportional punishment.
"You can't really try anything in the young drivers test," he said.
"The drivers at the wheel are just learning about formula one, while Mercedes had three days with their regular drivers."
Edited by st99, 24 June 2013 - 14:34.
#132
Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:41
Yup and you loose two teams (RB and TR) or the longest standing brand in F1 (Ferrari) with its engines for Sauber/Torro Rosso. The FIA is more cornered than they think.Two possibilities:
- They won't get any tyres (most likely)
- Somehow they get them and practice. The FIA invites them to the International Tribunal where they'll be handed a pretty heavy sentence (race bans, 150 points deduction or something like that) because they - unlike Mercedes - have not handled "in good faith", according to the Tribunal.
I think Merc threatened to leave and the blame was shoved to FIA by the IT.Some people here really need to go back and read the judgement. The reason Mercedes got a fairly light penalty is crystal clear - it was an FIA screw up as much as a Mercedes/Pirelli screw up and/or cheat. Rather than do a Moseley and hand out a unfair, unjust and heavily agenda driven penalty (some here seem to have loved those days ) they did the only sensible thing and negated the advantage gained by banning them from the young drivers test. Which is of arguably more value to teams than a test with tyres that won't be used.
It's really no surprise Formula One is in the state it is in if the fans on this board are in any way representative of the whole fanbase. As pathetic as the teams are.
A YDT is nowhere near as usefull as a private test,
- using your racing drivers
- no red flags from other teams
- no distractions
- the tire supplier is there for you and not nine others as well.
- no unwanted viewers of your upgrades (of course they had them, who could check that besides Merc crew?)
#133
Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:42
#134
Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:43
Well, I think it is definitely wide open for teams to explore this area of the rules.
If I had a F1 team, I would already had plans to have a third party tire manufacturer fabricate test tires that would emulate to some degree the current tires and then run the 2011 car day and night at my test track. Even if the tires are not identical to Pirelli's, the value of this data would be tremendous to calibrate the wind tunnel and tune the CFD models.
Anyways, that would have been legal always, and it is legal now.
What Ferrari should do is to paint the 2013 car in full Marlboro colors and race it in Mugello or Fiorano till somebody asks something. And then, with a straight face, say "No way that's a 2013 car. Tobacco advertising is banned. That is just a publicity stunt or something, because you couldn't race a Marlboro car in a current GP even if you wanted. And, anyway, we don't want... ".
After all, everybody should agree that a Marlboro painted car does not conform to this year regulations.
#135
Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:55
Why doesn't Red Bull (or any other team) just give Pirelli a 2013 car to use as they see fit?
The same reason that holds anything in F1 back, the teams are too darn stupid to put their own interests behind the good of the sport. If a team offered to provide a car, every other team would cry foul in the belief the tyres would then suit that one car.
#136
Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:05
Anyways, that would have been legal always, and it is legal now.
What Ferrari should do is to paint the 2013 car in full Marlboro colors and race it in Mugello or Fiorano till somebody asks something. And then, with a straight face, say "No way that's a 2013 car. Tobacco advertising is banned. That is just a publicity stunt or something, because you couldn't race a Marlboro car in a current GP even if you wanted. And, anyway, we don't want... ".
After all, everybody should agree that a Marlboro painted car does not conform to this year regulations.
The car cannot "substantially conform" to the Technical Regulations.
The ban on tobacco advertising is not in the technical regulations. Lets just agree that the sooner the FIA/teams get sensible (and watertight) rules in place for testing, the better.
#137
Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:10
I don't have time to check the technical regulations, but is running on Pirelli tyres (or 'officially supplied' tyres) stipulated?The car cannot "substantially conform" to the Technical Regulations.
#138
Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:16
I think Merc threatened to leave and the blame was shoved to FIA by the IT.
Is there any evidence for that? I didn't see any reports of threats by significant figures at Merc to pull out e.g. major shareholders such as Wolff and Lauda, or board members. There were a few stories suggesting they may quit but they weren't backed up by any credible or influential sources, and so it was pretty obviously hot air. The FIA knew that.
The FIA endorsed the interpretation of Article 22 which Mercedes then took when they did the test, and the tribunal then found Mercedes guilty of breaching that regulation without even considering whether the interpretation Mercedes took and Whiting and Bernard endorsed was correct. That's inherently unfair on Mercedes, which is why they had to basically let Mercedes off without punishment, and make a finding to the effect that Mercedes' intentions were pure, in order to head off the risk of Mercedes appealing. An appeal would have meant further digging around in Whiting's emails, which the tribunal seemed to be very keen to avoid.
If you look at it the tribunal went out of its way to avoid establishing why the FIA was saying at the hearing that Mercedes' test was clearly illegal, when prior to Red Bull and Ferrari's complaint the head of their legal department was happy that the regulations could be interpreted in a way that would have permitted the test. The tribunal went out of its way not to publish Whiting and Bernard's emails on the subject. It went out of its way to make a finding to the effect that Whiting behaved properly and fairly. It basically bent over backwards to protect the FIA - I can't work out why you think the FIA's own tribunal would shift blame onto the FIA? The reason the FIA still came out of it looking bad, and had to pay some of the costs, was because it was scarecely possible to protect them completely when they were clearly at fault. Q: "Can we test with a 2013 car?" A: "No it's against Article 22.1 SR" It's not difficult, is it?
They're lucky they didn't lose the case outright and end up paying all the costs.
#139
Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:20
#141
Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:26
In short, I find their bleating hilarious and it fills me with joy.
#142
Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:27
I don't have time to check the technical regulations, but is running on Pirelli tyres (or 'officially supplied' tyres) stipulated?
From memory yes but that doesn't really matter. "Substantially conforms" is vague terminology and one could easily argue that any car from 2009 onwards substantially conforms to the 2012/2013 Tech Regs. The 'two years old' is OK seems to have been accepted but I would have a tough time putting down on paper (technically speaking) why this is the case.
Edited by Dunder, 24 June 2013 - 15:29.
#143
Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:30
Sure it can, but crap journalists like Eason think it is better to put something stupid/unfounded in their paper to increase sales. Typical Rupert Murdoch crap; a pox on English speaking nations for too long.Can't F1 just move on already?
#144
Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:37
Can't F1 just move on already?
Yes F1 can move to the next scandal, maybe in August.
#145
Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:40
Nope, it was neither an agreement or a disagreement, I simply pointed out that your truth's was nothing more than opinions. It is perfectly possible to agree, or support, an opinion while still baring in mind that it is based on loose ground and might have to be adjusted when, or if, new information or knowledge becomes available.That wasn't disagreement?
In other news the sky isn't blue and the Pope is an orthodox rabbi.
#146
Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:49
It was clear from the beginning that this was a rubbish article.
I mean the verdict and FIA response to the verdict do no leave any room for rogue testing until procedures have been tightened up.
#147
Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:53
I'm waiting for his response. https://twitter.com/easonF1Sure it can, but crap journalists like Eason think it is better to put something stupid/unfounded in their paper to increase sales. Typical Rupert Murdoch crap; a pox on English speaking nations for too long.
#148
Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:53
'Merc had a go-ahead from the FIA to run their 2013 car.' - the Tribunal concluded that. Not my opinion.Nope, it was neither an agreement or a disagreement, I simply pointed out that your truth's was nothing more than opinions. It is perfectly possible to agree, or support, an opinion while still baring in mind that it is based on loose ground and might have to be adjusted when, or if, new information or knowledge becomes available.
'That's why the Tribunal gave a small penalty.' - The Tribunal's report stated that. Not my opinion.
The rest is so obvious a conclusion that it's not open to any reasonable argument. You can dispute that of course, but not if you won't give your view. Choice is yours.
#149
Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:58
Then why can't Whiting and FIA extend the same courtesy to others as well? Red Bull should specifically ask for it. You gave the nod to Mercedes, similarly give it to us as well. There won't be any problem, we all would go to IT and then business as usual.People do realise the reason Mercedes some how got "away" with this it's because the FIA ( Charlie Whiting and FIA lawyer) and Pirelli ( it was a Pirelli test) were also "guilty" as well? If Ferrari or/and Red Bull do test on their own, they will get at least a 100M fines.
#150
Posted 24 June 2013 - 16:00
I think you'll see, if you study the verdict, that they concluded no such thing.'Merc had a go-ahead from the FIA to run their 2013 car.' - the Tribunal concluded that. Not my opinion.
Well, since the first falls, the rest of your argument falls with it.'That's why the Tribunal gave a small penalty.' - The Tribunal's report stated that. Not my opinion.
The rest is so obvious a conclusion that it's not open to any reasonable argument. You can dispute that of course, but not if you won't give your view. Choice is yours.
Try again