Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 4 votes

How do you assess Mercedes's penalty?


  • Please log in to reply
415 replies to this topic

Poll: What do you think of the outcome? (391 member(s) have cast votes)

What do you think of the outcome?

  1. It is fair (158 votes [40.41%])

    Percentage of vote: 40.41%

  2. Their points should have been duducted (84 votes [21.48%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.48%

  3. They should have been banished from this year (34 votes [8.70%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.70%

  4. FIA should have let the rivals have a test session (73 votes [18.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.67%

  5. FIA should have imposed a deterrent fine (42 votes [10.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.74%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#51 KiloWatt

KiloWatt
  • Member

  • 1,217 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 21 June 2013 - 16:22

Exactly - this "penalty" is an OK sign to the other teams to do own tests


Yeah, it's an okay sign for other teams to test unknown tyres and absolutely no new components while not being even able to set their own test schedule. :up:

Advertisement

#52 rijole1

rijole1
  • Member

  • 633 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 21 June 2013 - 16:23

Ignoring all politics, Merc was punished so lightly because the Tribunal believed they acted in good faith. After this verdict no other team can invoke good faith in relation to this subject. No good faith = no light punishment.

According acting in good faith I can just say - I do not believe Mercedes did this in good faith, that they thought everything was according to regulations.
I think people working at Mercedes are very intelligent, professional people - not ignorant, stupid people living in a fantasy F1 word

...
I can see why there's a sense of unfairness here, but if testing with a 2013 car is illegal the conversation should have been:
Mercedes: can we use our 2013 car for tyre testing?
Whiting: No it's against the sporting regulations.
Mercedes: Okay, it's the 2011 car or nothing, then. Thanks, Charlie.

Mercedes asked the question. They didn't put any words in Charlie's mouth. Blame the FIA. The FIA's own tribunal didn't award them any of their costs, and ordered them to pay an equal share of the tribunal's costs, which rather suggests they've cocked up here, don't you think?

I agree - actually most of it, all this mess, is FIAs fault - vague rules, bending rules depending on which team it is about and so on...

Edited by rijole1, 21 June 2013 - 16:27.


#53 learningtobelost

learningtobelost
  • Member

  • 686 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 June 2013 - 16:39

Mercedes had a particular interpretation of Article 22.1, they had FIA endorsement of that, they had asked for permission to use the current car and were not told that it was illegal, and there was no precedent to tell them if the thing would be legal or not. Hence why the tribunal found they acted in good faith. Suppose Red Bull tests with a 2013 car this weekend without asking permission, or having asked permission and been told "no". Would their case be the same as Merc's? Not even close.

The FIA could refer it to the tribunal, who could say "you knew it was illegal because there's an International Tribunal judgement saying so, so you did it in bad faith (unlike Mercedes) so you are out of the championship." And rightly so.

Anyway, suppose Red Bull want to test, what tyres are they going to use? Is Pirelli going to provide them given they've just been reprimanded for the last "private" test they did? It's not going to happen so you might as well get over it. Brawn has found a way to wriggle out of it again, as he always does.

I can see why there's a sense of unfairness here, but if testing with a 2013 car is illegal the conversation should have been:
Mercedes: can we use our 2013 car for tyre testing?
Whiting: No it's against the sporting regulations.
Mercedes: Okay, it's the 2011 car or nothing, then. Thanks, Charlie.

Mercedes asked the question. They didn't put any words in Charlie's mouth. Blame the FIA. The FIA's own tribunal didn't award them any of their costs, and ordered them to pay an equal share of the tribunal's costs, which rather suggests they've cocked up here, don't you think?


:up:

Look at all that logic... look at it!

The division of costs sends a very strong signal.

#54 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 21 June 2013 - 16:44

The FIA is apparently planning to cancel the Young Driver Tests for 2014 and they have not accepted Pirelli & Force India's proposal to let a rookie test on Friday with an extra set of tyres, instead all race drivers can use that extra set of tyres on Friday. At one side you have people who are complaining that rookies need to get more test mileage, also from a safety aspect, at the other side you have the big teams and the FIA doing absolutely nothing to get more experience for rookie drivers. And Mercedes will never let Bird have Rosberg's or Hamilton's car on Friday because the one that drives a session less has a disadvantage for the rest of the weekend.

Isn't in-season testing mooted to return next season? That's the only thing that can help young drivers, not Friday sessions or young driver's test.

#55 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,921 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 21 June 2013 - 16:47

51 people think this is a fair decision. Am I missing something or what? How can this be a fair decision? Even if we look at Mercedes defence it was like "Ferrari did this, the others did that"

You, sporting cp, are hebery condemned to read the actual statement from Mercedes GP and the full decision of the International Tribunal.

#56 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,747 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 21 June 2013 - 16:51

51 people think this is a fair decision. Am I missing something or what?


Yeah you are missing whole lot.


#57 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 7,265 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 June 2013 - 16:58

Mercedes, Lewis Hamilton, Nico Rosberg, Ross Brawn and the whole lot participating in that test are low down cheats for doing so. I will change my signature to reflect that.

It was the expected outcome, but that doesn't mean we have to like it. :down:

#58 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,514 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 21 June 2013 - 16:58

Mercedes, Lewis Hamilton, Nico Rosberg, Ross Brawn and the whole lot participating in that test are low down cheats for doing so. I will change my signature to reflect that.

It was the expected outcome, but that doesn't mean we have to like it. :down:

Or understand it, apparently.

#59 solochamp07

solochamp07
  • Member

  • 188 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 June 2013 - 16:58

Huh? Where's the "not fair; Lewis should get banned/flogged/demoted" option? :confused:

Advertisement

#60 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 1,941 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 21 June 2013 - 17:13

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: It is actually the opposite. !


Maybe so but everyone including Mercedes knew you couldn't test with the current car.

#61 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,514 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 21 June 2013 - 17:16

Maybe so but everyone including Mercedes knew you couldn't test with the current car.

The head of the legal department at the FIA didn't know that, for one.
That should at least suggest to you that it isn't as clear-cut as you seem to think.

#62 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 June 2013 - 17:23

Ross Brawn :up: , who'd swap him for Paddy Lowe now?

#63 drunkenmaster

drunkenmaster
  • Member

  • 325 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 21 June 2013 - 17:51

Ross Brawn :up: , who'd swap him for Paddy Lowe now?

I agree with the judgement. Mercedes acted in good faith, they had approval from a high FIA representative, and it was up to Pirelli to inform the other teams about the test. And Brawn might have done a good job at the court.

But nonetheless the clumisness of how they conducted the whole thing cost them the participation in the 3 day young drivers test.

What's more worth? Running 1000 km with unknown tires and without doing any aero tests?

Or doing things like that in the YTD:

Posted Image

I think the YTD is much more worth. Then add the bad publicity Merc got about the whole thing.

So, no, overall Brawn has done a big disservice to the team. :down:

Edited by drunkenmaster, 21 June 2013 - 17:51.


#64 Grundle

Grundle
  • Member

  • 721 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 June 2013 - 19:02

A good punishment is it's own reward.
Massive boost for Mercedes.

#65 jrg19

jrg19
  • Member

  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 21 June 2013 - 19:10

Penalty was pretty harsh, how must Sam Bird feel?

#66 Juablo

Juablo
  • Member

  • 629 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 June 2013 - 19:22

Penalty was pretty harsh, how must Sam Bird feel?

Spitting feathers

#67 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 June 2013 - 19:28

I agree with the judgement. Mercedes acted in good faith, they had approval from a high FIA representative, and it was up to Pirelli to inform the other teams about the test. And Brawn might have done a good job at the court.

But nonetheless the clumisness of how they conducted the whole thing cost them the participation in the 3 day young drivers test.

What's more worth? Running 1000 km with unknown tires and without doing any aero tests?

Or doing things like that in the YTD:

I think the YTD is much more worth. Then add the bad publicity Merc got about the whole thing.

So, no, overall Brawn has done a big disservice to the team. :down:

Brawn nearly got both tests. Then he kept his defence quiet amid all the hullabaloo and produced it evidently to great effect in the tribunal. He had his 1,000 km of testing, changing components and with his race drivers who load the car differently from a GP2 driver. Also he had that data weeks earlier.

Win for Brawn, all the way. He saw he had a pretext that gave him an advantage, and went for it.

#68 SlickMick

SlickMick
  • Member

  • 146 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 21 June 2013 - 19:52

Fair outcome.
Common sense prevailed. Pirelli, Mercedes and the Tribunal all kindly let the FIA off the hook.
Not only will the FIA need to tighten up its rules but this hopefully could prompt some relaxation of the test ban - not before time.

BTW
If you think this now means a free for all in testing then you're an idiot.
If you thought Mercedes ever had any intention of gunning for Ferrari then you're an idiot.
If you think Brawn or the Merc lawyers were idiots (eg, Ferrari test, offer to accept reprimand and YDT ban) then you're an idiot.
If you made more than five posts in the "other" thread then you're a boring opinionated idiot.
If it takes you 10 posts to understand there is no friggin English ticker then you're an idiot.
If it takes 11 posts to answer the 10 above then you're an idiot.
If your name is Niki Lauda then you're an idiot.
This could be a very long list and I'm getting fed up with myself...

Mods - there is no way I should get banned for calling so many idiots because I read absolutely every single post in the "other" thread and the overwhelmingly vast majority were pure unadulterated bollocks by Ironside wannabees - I demand trial by Tribunal as opposed to trial by Forum.



#69 Shiroo

Shiroo
  • Member

  • 4,012 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 21 June 2013 - 19:53

Ban someone from 3 days test for youngsters.
Whine later about low level of newbies

F1 logic.

#70 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 June 2013 - 20:42

Its a hard one, on one hand they clearly breached the sporting regs and in a pretty serious manner, on the other though the FIA and Pirelli contributed to this through poor communication and a lack of clarification, so just how accountable were Mercedes? That's the crux of the matter and ultimately what led to their relatively light penalty.

Half of me thinks they should have been given a more severe penalty but the other half thinks this is about right as Mercedes have led us to believe they took the contact between themselves, Pirelli and the FIA in good faith.


#71 F1ultimate

F1ultimate
  • Member

  • 2,923 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 21 June 2013 - 20:55

The penalty was more political than it was a punishment. F1 needs the participation of big manufacturers like Mercedes. A harsh penalty wouldn't have gone down well with the Mercedes shareholder who are already on the fence about the brand's participation in F1 as a manufacturer. A harsh penalty could have been a nail in the coffin for the team which would be bad for for the sport.

Ross just got him a slap on the wrist and I'm sure he'll take a long and harder think next time he tries to bend the law and stain Mercedes with a potential scandal.

#72 Ricardo F1

Ricardo F1
  • Member

  • 38,797 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 21 June 2013 - 21:05

Exactly - this "penalty" is an OK sign to the other teams to do own tests

Mercedes didn't test, Pirelli tested. You can argue that the penalty says is OK for other teams who are asked by Pirelli to test their tyres can do so with their current car . . . but that's something entirely different.

Let's be honest the penalty is purely a face save for the FIA who screwed this up royally.


#73 MrPodium

MrPodium
  • Member

  • 612 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 21 June 2013 - 21:05

Mercedes, Lewis Hamilton, Nico Rosberg, Ross Brawn and the whole lot participating in that test are low down cheats for doing so. I will change my signature to reflect that.

It was the expected outcome, but that doesn't mean we have to like it. :down:



And of course, your favourite team have never cheat ever, ever, ever.

I can understand some people's frustration in thinking the severity of the punishment was too light. When I read the outcome, I too thought Mercedes had escaped very, very lightly. However, in their defence, Mercedes must have had some pretty solid evidence for the outcome to be reached as it was.

At the end of the day, the FIA's rules are too vague. That's why Redbull got away with flexi-wings, Ferrari with a slap on the wrist for team orders, etc. Shit happens. And sometimes the outcome is not always to our satisfaction, whatever side you may cheer on. You can either accept it, or slam your keyboard around and cry a bit. Either way, the world isn't fair, nor is F1 at times.

#74 EvanRainer

EvanRainer
  • Member

  • 1,364 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 21 June 2013 - 21:19

At the end of the day, the FIA's rules are too vague. That's why Redbull got away with flexi-wings


What THE HELL are you talking about. The wing passed the TESTS EVERY TIME. Nothing to do with "vague rules".

Try again.

#75 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,921 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 21 June 2013 - 21:20

A good decision as the International Tribunal made its own independent decision rather than making some political choice. This was their first case and they had to show their significance.
To me, the most telling thing is that it condemns the FIA to pay 1/3 of the costs of the proceedings, apart from the sum they have to pay to their own lawyers. That basically shows that they think the FIA and its legal structure has made a mess of it as well.

People saying that it was a political decision, that Mercedes got off lightly etcetera, should read the verdict more closely. It more or less acknowledges that it was indeed a Pirelli test in the first place and that the FIA was rather ambiguous in its communication about what was allowed or not, thereby opening the possibility of a test with a 2013 car. I hope that the FIA learns its lesson from this and shows more transparency from now on - which puts it in a position to ask for more transparency from other parties as well.


#76 rijole1

rijole1
  • Member

  • 633 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 21 June 2013 - 21:43

Maybe so but everyone including Mercedes knew you couldn't test with the current car.

:up:

#77 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,921 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 21 June 2013 - 21:48

Maybe so but everyone including Mercedes knew you couldn't test with the current car.

Well, the FIA didn't know it for sure. That's how it all started.

#78 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,424 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 21 June 2013 - 22:03

Penalty was pretty harsh, how must Sam Bird feel?


Not that happy, but lets be honest he's never going to race a Formula One car. The top teams almost exclusively use their long-term development drivers in these tests to develop the cars, rather than actual young drivers, and banning Mercedes from participating is only going to harm the team.

What THE HELL are you talking about. The wing passed the TESTS EVERY TIME. Nothing to do with "vague rules".

Try again.


The rules were clear, and the wings were clearly in contravention of them, but it was an insufficient test that allowed flexi-wings to be used.

Edited by Fastcake, 21 June 2013 - 22:14.


#79 MrPodium

MrPodium
  • Member

  • 612 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 21 June 2013 - 22:03

What THE HELL are you talking about. The wing passed the TESTS EVERY TIME. Nothing to do with "vague rules".

Try again.


Ok, whatever you think. Try not using CAPS, it doesn't further your argument.

Btw - Scrutineering can be flawed at times, it's been known to happen. Just like lenient penalties (or outrageous ones), for example.


Advertisement

#80 sportingcp

sportingcp
  • Member

  • 129 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 21 June 2013 - 22:08

A good decision as the International Tribunal made its own independent decision rather than making some political choice. This was their first case and they had to show their significance.
To me, the most telling thing is that it condemns the FIA to pay 1/3 of the costs of the proceedings, apart from the sum they have to pay to their own lawyers. That basically shows that they think the FIA and its legal structure has made a mess of it as well.

People saying that it was a political decision, that Mercedes got off lightly etcetera, should read the verdict more closely. It more or less acknowledges that it was indeed a Pirelli test in the first place and that the FIA was rather ambiguous in its communication about what was allowed or not, thereby opening the possibility of a test with a 2013 car. I hope that the FIA learns its lesson from this and shows more transparency from now on - which puts it in a position to ask for more transparency from other parties as well.


Link please

#81 halifaxf1fan

halifaxf1fan
  • Member

  • 4,846 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 June 2013 - 22:11

Penalty was pretty harsh, how must Sam Bird feel?


Posted Image
Ross: "We are guilty as charged. I recommend that you punish Sam Bird."

Posted Image
Tribunal: "Excellent idea. Sam Bird your F1 dream is over."



#82 EvanRainer

EvanRainer
  • Member

  • 1,364 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 21 June 2013 - 22:13

Ok, whatever you think. Try not using CAPS, it doesn't further your argument.

Btw - Scrutineering can be flawed at times, it's been known to happen. Just like lenient penalties (or outrageous ones), for example.


Caps are for emphasis. Also facts are not an "argument". Otherwise whatever. Keep believing whatever myth makes you feel better.

#83 Massa_f1

Massa_f1
  • Member

  • 3,386 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 21 June 2013 - 22:17

Funny how It is fair is winning.

I know for a fact it would not be the case had Red Bull of done this.

Edited by Massa_f1, 21 June 2013 - 22:18.


#84 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,921 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 21 June 2013 - 22:21

Link please

http://www.fia.com/s.....sion (EN).pdf

#85 inky38

inky38
  • New Member

  • 14 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 21 June 2013 - 22:23

What THE HELL are you talking about. The wing passed the TESTS EVERY TIME. Nothing to do with "vague rules".

Try again.


Hmm remember that cyclist. What was his name again.

Oh yes it was LANCE ARMSTRONG

I do believe he passed TESTS EVERY TIME.

We know the truth now though don't we

#86 Afterburner

Afterburner
  • In the running for best OP of 2014

  • 3,523 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 21 June 2013 - 22:30

The penalty was fair. The big story here, in my opinion, will be what becomes of the testing ban.

#87 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,718 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 21 June 2013 - 22:54

Well, it would have been unfair to hand harsh penalties to Brawn now in the dawn of his career, after he got away with everything for almost 30 years. So in that sense, the "penalty" is fair I guess. :D

#88 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,424 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 21 June 2013 - 22:57

The penalty was fair. The big story here, in my opinion, will be what becomes of the testing ban.


Not much of a story then, the mid-season testing ban has already been lifted for next year.

#89 Rikhart

Rikhart
  • Member

  • 581 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 June 2013 - 23:00

This "penalty" is an absolute joke :) If I was the other teams, I would be hard at work thinking to ways to get unfair advantages, it pays big time.

#90 travbrad

travbrad
  • Member

  • 681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 21 June 2013 - 23:39

This "penalty" is an absolute joke :) If I was the other teams, I would be hard at work thinking to ways to get unfair advantages, it pays big time.


Unless you are Mclaren, then it pays -100million :p

#91 EvanRainer

EvanRainer
  • Member

  • 1,364 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 22 June 2013 - 00:39

Hmm remember that cyclist. What was his name again.

Oh yes it was LANCE ARMSTRONG

I do believe he passed TESTS EVERY TIME.

We know the truth now though don't we


Only you know, he didn't actually pass them. Not to mention your analogy is false.


I find it very interesting how nobody seems to care about how this is affecting the championship. Mercedes getting an advantage and being quicker has implications. What if for example, they keep qualifying ahead of Ferrari and in that way making Red Bull's job easier? This is something no punishment could have fixed either.

Then of course, Pirelli all but admitted they tried to influence the championship by hindering a certain team and no one seemed to care either.

#92 crbassassin

crbassassin
  • Member

  • 426 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 22 June 2013 - 00:45

No option for "not fair"



#93 Ricardo F1

Ricardo F1
  • Member

  • 38,797 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 22 June 2013 - 01:00

This "penalty" is an absolute joke :) If I was the other teams, I would be hard at work thinking to ways to get unfair advantages, it pays big time.

I'd love to know what this massive advantage is. And because of the FIA screwing this up turns out to be a major DISadvantage as I see it.

Edited by Ricardo F1, 22 June 2013 - 01:00.


#94 Kelateboy

Kelateboy
  • Member

  • 5,797 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 22 June 2013 - 01:18

I expected Pirelli to get a slap on the wrist - they did.

I expected Mercedes to get some fines, not much but some - it did not happen. A much lenient sentence in the form of missing YDT, but it is to be expected as F1 could not expect to lose a manufacturer and an engine supplier for the future.

#95 packapoo

packapoo
  • Member

  • 731 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 22 June 2013 - 02:19

Not going to bother to read thru.
I voted fair; what disturbs me the most is that Todt and Whiting both live another day to create more screw-ups.

#96 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 7,265 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 June 2013 - 02:20

Or understand it, apparently.


Which twisted explanation am I supposed to use to understand it? Because it is clearly not the one that asserts Hamilton and Rosberg have 600 miles of extra driving time in their 2013 Mercedes. And that Mercedes saw 600 miles of telemetry and got 600 miles of feed back from their professional drivers about their 2013 car - in an unlawful 2013 in-season test. And frankly, that is the only explanation that matters.

I would feel the same if it were Red Bull. Would you?

#97 Eff One 2002

Eff One 2002
  • Member

  • 936 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 22 June 2013 - 03:50

To me it's pretty simple: It's a fair penalty because Merc broke the rules by testing a 2013 spec car when there are rules in place that say you can't do that. They get penalised by not being permitted to take part in an upcoming test whilst the other teams will. The punishment fits the crime and is therefore appropriate.

#98 Shambolic

Shambolic
  • Member

  • 652 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 22 June 2013 - 04:02

Deliberate crash to cause a perfectly timed safety car - Lifetime bans.

Gaining and using information from a rival team advantageously - 100M fine and exclusion from the WCC for that year.

Running technically underweight due to taking into account fuel (allegedly) necessary to keep the system primed - Two race ban.

Overtaking on the warm up lap - Drive through penalty, turned to disqualification and further race bans.

Excess wear on the rubber plank attributed to spinning over kerbs - Disqualification.

Running out of spec brake ducts or rear wing elements, or fuel that although not performance enhancing did not match mandatory samples - Disqualification.

Contemptuously ignoring in season testing restrictions, lying about doing so, fudging the facts, and finger pointing at another team for doing the same but nothing like the same - A minor slap on the wrist, and not allowed to run a far less valuable test all others can attend.

This "penalty" is complete BS, but I didn't expect anything different. The case was judged before the British GP (which "needs" Hamilton), and the German GP (which "needs" Mercedes). The show (between the hunt for spectacle, and perversion into business, I can't really call it a sport any more) is better in some eyes if Mercedes are mixing up the grid in qually, and if Hamilton is on track and somewhere near other big names.

#99 Afterburner

Afterburner
  • In the running for best OP of 2014

  • 3,523 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 22 June 2013 - 05:05

Not much of a story then, the mid-season testing ban has already been lifted for next year.

Got a source for me to read, if you would please? Last I heard, it was still a rumour, and I've been a bit out of the loop lately. :drunk:

Advertisement

#100 Ricardo F1

Ricardo F1
  • Member

  • 38,797 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 22 June 2013 - 05:08

Contemptuously ignoring in season testing restrictions, lying about doing so, fudging the facts, and finger pointing at another team for doing the same but nothing like the same - A minor slap on the wrist, and not allowed to run a far less valuable test all others can attend.

What on Earth have you been reading? It was a Pirelli test, Pirelli are allowed to test. When did they lie? They asked the FIA for permission which was granted. They pointed out Ferrari had done in season testing for Pirelli too.

And the young drivers test is far MORE valuable than driving around a track with a standard spec car on next years tyres. At the young drivers test I believe teams can test all manner of upgrades, not to mention get valuable information from THIS years tyres.

Lay off the crack, this has bugger all to do with Hamilton it has far more to do with the embarrassment caused by Charlie and the FIA legal team in allowing it to happen.