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

#101 Kelateboy

Kelateboy
  • Member

  • 5,792 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 22 June 2013 - 05:16

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?

RBR and Horner did the right thing by keeping their comments to the minimum, and I sure hope Helmut Marko could keep his mouth shut.

RBR are not going to suffer much this year from this tyregate. They will still win both championships, their main rival will still be Ferrari and Mercedes will still be hard on their rear tyres (hopefully).

2014 is another story altogether, and hopefully Pirelli will not use the tyres tested by Mercedes during the tyregate to offset any perceived advantages, real or otherwise.

Advertisement

#102 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 5,384 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 22 June 2013 - 05:29

What penalty?

If a driver jump starts at the next race.. they should penalise him by not allowing him to have dinner on the plane that night after the race.

Edited by HoldenRT, 22 June 2013 - 05:30.


#103 Eff One 2002

Eff One 2002
  • Member

  • 888 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 22 June 2013 - 05:30

They asked the FIA for permission which was granted.


If this is true then why are they being penalised?

#104 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 5,384 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 22 June 2013 - 05:35

Just to be clear.. the rookie tests mean nothing. It's the rookie that is being penalised more than the team itself. Testing at Barcelona so earlier in the season with race drivers.. the very next day after a race.. is 1000x more valuable than any rookie test.

Edited by HoldenRT, 22 June 2013 - 05:35.


#105 PARAZAR

PARAZAR
  • Member

  • 1,123 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 22 June 2013 - 06:13

Ridiculous verdict. Yes indeed they acted in good faith, yes their drivers wore black helmets for security reasons, yes we believe you.

#106 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 6,630 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 June 2013 - 06:42

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.


True, no punishment could fix it. How about good faith? Did that fix it? :rotfl:


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.


This was amazing. I couldn't believe those words came out of Hembry's mouth. He made all of Pirelli look like a bunch of biased, unsportsmanlike jackasses, out to sabotage the champions. One has to imagine that is not the case, but it was a highly ignorant thing to say, imo.

#107 caso

caso
  • Member

  • 169 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 22 June 2013 - 06:46

Look out for Alonso and Vettel at the YDT. They'll probably wear black helmets.

Even if the upcoming YDT was as informative as a test with senior drivers (which I doubt it is), to forbid Mercedes to participate in another test would only level the field. There is no punishment. I'm disappointed by the outcome of this trial.

Edited by caso, 22 June 2013 - 06:55.


#108 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 8,020 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 22 June 2013 - 06:51


For those who don't think the punishment is fair, I think you need to point your finger at the FIA and particularly Whiting and Bernard. I don't think for a moment Brawn decided to test for the good of Pirelli, the sport and all of mankind...but the FIA created a situation where merc could test and effectively get away with it. I find the conclusion that Mercedes acted in good faith and didn't seek an advantage bollocks...but it's absolutely impossible to claim otherwise beyond doubt. Merc broke the rule but the governing body basically gave them permission to break the rule...whether or not merc got 'the correct' permission is neither here nor there to me. The FIA created an opportunity and Brawn grasped it with both hands, in most areas of F1 competitors are praised for doing that.


This was amazing. I couldn't believe those words came out of Hembry's mouth. He made all of Pirelli look like a bunch of biased, unsportsmanlike jackasses, out to sabotage the champions. One has to imagine that is not the case, but it was a highly ignorant thing to say, imo.


Could you provide a summary or link please? I've missed this it, thanks.

#109 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 1,077 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 22 June 2013 - 06:52

Funny how It is fair is winning.

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

It's a flawed poll. One option for fair, four options for "too lenient" and none for "too harsh"

#110 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,293 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 22 June 2013 - 07:47

It's a flawed poll. One option for fair, four options for "too lenient" and none for "too harsh"


Yeah, the absence of that option really hurts the most. :D  ;)

#111 Mr.Wayne

Mr.Wayne
  • Member

  • 572 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 22 June 2013 - 07:49

I am not sure what to make of this test...

It is true that Mercedes used a 2013 car, and it is true they did try to hide it a bit too much (black helmets for privacy of their drivers, one of whom likes to pretend is a rock star... yeah, sure!), and the penalty doesn't feel like a penalty at all.

BUT

It gives the FIA a nice way out of judging Ferrari: IF it is true that Ferrari paid for their test, that it was an exhaustive long test, and that they did test other than tyres (there are comments about Ferrari testing the balance of their car... why would they spend time learning about the balance of a 2 years old car if there is nothing for them to learn for this year?) then I would guess that Mercedes' infraction doesn't look that outrageous anymore.

And, as someone pointed out in other thread, coincidentally, Ferrari went to the Spanish GP with a very "aggressive" strategy from the word go; a strategy that was totally different to what all the other teams had learned up to that point. And they won the race, comfortably and without breaking a sweat, with that strategy... Not saying they DID benefit from the test, but...

#112 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 2,150 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 22 June 2013 - 09:23

The option I wanted isn't there.

* FIA should be punished for having vague rules, incoherent procedures for rules clarification and backstabbing unaccountable Charlie Whiting.

Right. I can't take any of these FIA procedures serious. They often either make it up as they go along, or reinterpret rules that never before caused confusion. :rolleyes:

As for the consequences for Mercedes? I haven't given any of this too much attention, but apparently they played it pretty hard and it seems to have worked out quite well. Good for them.

Edited by Nonesuch, 22 June 2013 - 09:23.


#113 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,247 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 22 June 2013 - 09:37

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.

The part where the Independent Tribunal, having heard all the evidence, said that Merc acted in good faith, had no intention to gain an unfair sporting advantage, disclosed the essence of what they were doing to the FIA and had no reason to think approval hadn't been given.

Those are the independent tribunal's conclusions, that you somehow manage to read as 'cheating sc*mbags.'

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

I can't think of a reason why not. What are you suggesting?

Edited by trogggy, 22 June 2013 - 09:39.


#114 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 1,077 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 22 June 2013 - 09:38

And, as someone pointed out in other thread, coincidentally, Ferrari went to the Spanish GP with a very "aggressive" strategy from the word go; a strategy that was totally different to what all the other teams had learned up to that point. And they won the race, comfortably and without breaking a sweat, with that strategy... Not saying they DID benefit from the test, but...

And not much is known about that test. I am sure Mercedes would not have left any stone unturned finding out details about Ferrari's test had the verdict been something that hurt them.

#115 Henrik B

Henrik B
  • Member

  • 2,705 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 22 June 2013 - 09:42

If this is true then why are they being penalised?


Because Whiting and Bernard was wrong. From the verdict (which should be read by all): "insofar as FIA expressed its qualified approval for the testing to be carried out, that approval could not, and did not, vary the express prohibition stipulated by Article 22 SR".

According to the verdict, even if you get approval you can be in the wrong!

But, this approval explains the relatively soft penalty: "in recognition of the fact that the testing would not have taken place but for the bona fide, but misconceived “qualified approval” which was given on behalf of the FIA".

#116 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,140 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 22 June 2013 - 09:43

If I was Lotus, Red Bull etc., I'd not only have the youths test. I'd give Seb and Kimi and Mark etc a run too. All they'd get is a slap of the wrist. Its been shown by the FIA that the drivers wasn't an issue.

Edited by Melbourne Park, 22 June 2013 - 09:43.


#117 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 1,077 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 22 June 2013 - 09:47

Its been shown by the FIA that the drivers wasn't an issue.

Why should the drivers be an issue?

#118 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 1,651 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 22 June 2013 - 09:51

If I was Lotus, Red Bull etc., I'd not only have the youths test. I'd give Seb and Kimi and Mark etc a run too. All they'd get is a slap of the wrist. Its been shown by the FIA that the drivers wasn't an issue.

You think that the other teams would accept? - though I'm not sure whether or not they could actually protest such an action as I don't know the exact status of such a test - I assume it must be FIA approved so it
is possible it comes under their jurisdiction as far as what is legal - I guess it might just be another one of the '50 shades of grey' that should really be the title if the FIA rule book.

#119 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,372 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 22 June 2013 - 09:53

What penalty?


The penalty is that they will now be unable to freely test their car in the forthcoming YDT, which would have been far more valuable than blind tyre testing with Pirelli. They could have been fined, they could have been docked WCC points, but neither of those would have had an impact on future car performance relative to the competition. Missing this test will do that.

Edited by P123, 22 June 2013 - 09:55.


Advertisement

#120 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,293 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 22 June 2013 - 09:59

The penalty is that they will now be unable to freely test their car in the forthcoming YDT, which would have been far more valuable than blind tyre testing with Pirelli. They could have been fined, they could have been docked WCC points, but neither of those would have had an impact on future car performance relative to the competition. Missing this test will do that.


Well, you can chose to believe all that. Or the opposite.

It's not as if you, or me, know with certainty which test was/is more advantageous.

#121 fenixracing

fenixracing
  • Member

  • 340 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:00

for me it just showed that fia where more at fault then merc and tried to cover up there mistake.
do people even read the reports yes they tested with the 2013 car buth not 2013 tyres, they tested tyres that will not even be used.

#122 Fourjays

Fourjays
  • Member

  • 242 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:02

Seems straight up fair to me. FIA screwed up as Mercedes and Pirelli were both under the impression that they'd been given permission. FIA basically admitted this, but also recognized an unfair advantage was gained despite the confusion over whether it was legal or illegal (caused by themselves). So they're correcting it in the fairest way possible by banning them from a test where teams will be able to gain data (which could potentially be more valuable than that from a Pirelli test), and making it clear to all that it isn't allowed.

I really don't know how people can make these claims of Mercedes supposedly gained advantage being visible on the track. Since the first race they've had great one lap pace and poor tyre wear in the races, and it hasn't really changed one bit since Barcelona. It was predicted quite early on that they'd win Monaco as well so that was hardly a surprise.

But don't let facts get in the way of agendas...

#123 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,372 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:02

and finger pointing at another team for doing the same but nothing like the same


Exactly. The Ferrari test smells even more, but for different reasons. A test paid for by Ferrari. A test that exceeded the 1000km Pirelli contracted limit. A test that involved car testing. So not a Pirelli test at all. Not a straight line test. Not a filming day. A Ferrari car test.

#124 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,372 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:11

Well, you can chose to believe all that. Or the opposite.

It's not as if you, or me, know with certainty which test was/is more advantageous.


You only have to look at what came out from the tribunal. Pirelli did provide Mercedes with some data, but Mercedes did not know the tyres used. Is that data wholly useful? Nobody argued that Mercedes gained an actual performance advantage from it, moreso it was claimed they had learned about reliability. The test they are banned from taking part in is free testing, where you can run to your own programme, testing chassis updates, rather than tyres that will never be run in anger on the car they are being tested on.

Unless of course blind tyre testing is the new holy grail for improving car performance. Yet I don't see any team arguing for more blind tyre testing.

#125 EvanRainer

EvanRainer
  • Member

  • 1,364 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:20

I love all the people in this thread who you rarely see post any more who have come out of hiding to tell us just how "fair" this (non) punishment is.

They all, of course, just happen to be fans of a particular driver. I don't understand what the point of giving your "opinion" is when it is clearly only based on your bias.

Edited by EvanRainer, 22 June 2013 - 10:22.


#126 Crafty

Crafty
  • Member

  • 4,056 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:22

They couldn't do anything else really.

Merc had asked Charlie if they could test, Charlie checks with the FIA legal team and the answer was yes. Merc basically had permission to do what they did. If you read the judgement the judges were convinced that Merc thought they had permission to do it.

In the trial the FIA said that the email from Charlie was irrelevant, which is the weakest defence ever - of course it was relevant, a team asked a specific question about a rule and got a clarification. Typical slack, arrogant FIA.

So straight away the whole thing is in a nowhere land with regards to rules - you can't have been deemed to break the rules if no-one (FIA included) knows what they are.

The reprimand was because of the plain helmets I think, that signifies that Merc knew this would be controversial.

The most interesting part of the whole thing is that if the Merc test was "illegal" so were the Ferrari tests. For my money I reckon Ferrari learnt far mroe than Merc did by running a 2011 car on this years tyres and got off completely scot free.

The other important thing to note is that Bernie brokered a deal between Red Bull, the FIA and Merc to make all of this go away - Merc management (the company, not the team) rejected it (this came from Lauda).
So Horner was willing to accept a few quid to withdraw the protest ? What this means is the all the crap from Horner about "We just want ot know what the rule are, so we had to put in a protest" and so on was a complete load of rubbish, he was just pissed off that Pirelli didn't ask them along to that test. the guy has no integrity at all, I'd have loved to see his face when the verdict was read out.



#127 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,678 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:24

I love all the people in this thread who you rarely see post any more who have come out of hiding to tell us just how "fair" this (non) punishment is.

They all, of course, just happen to be fans of a particular driver.


It's not like you would have taken the same stance if it was not Horner and Red Bull who protested. At least take it on the chin, and move on.

#128 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,372 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:27

I love all the people in this thread who you rarely see post any more who have come out of hiding to tell us just how "fair" this (non) punishment is.

They all, of course, just happen to be fans of a particular driver. I don't understand what the point of giving your "opinion" is when it is clearly only based on your bias.


The drivers were never an issue in the case, apart from them running with unpainted helmets. Is it not your own blind bias against a particular driving that is colouring your own opinion, because I see no counter argument from yourself, just a whine about how anybody who doesn't agree with whatever your stance is must be a rabid driver fan.

#129 Crafty

Crafty
  • Member

  • 4,056 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:31

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.


Those "lifetime bans" expired. Symonds is working with Marussia, Stepney with a WEC team, Flavio is busy wearing his thongs (and no, we don't need the picture again) whilst cavorting with girls young enough to be his daughter.
All of the other things you mention are clear breaches in the rules, unlike this test.

Merc never lied and they never ignored restrictions - if you bothered to read the trial verdict they had an email from Charlie & FIA legal team saying that Pirelli could use their current car/drivers for a test.
The FIA later decided that the email was "irrelevant", which, frankly is the most pathetically arrogant defence I've ever heard. They were very unwise to take this to tribunal. Note that Red Bull / FIA / Merc paid a third of the legal costs each - you don't generally pay legal costs if you are in the right.

Merc didn't "point" the finger at Ferrari - the test was well known about. Interestingly the tribunal noted that the Ferrari test broke the rules too, but are unable to impose any penalty as that wasn't the matter they were asked to judge on.



#130 EvanRainer

EvanRainer
  • Member

  • 1,364 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:31

It's not like you would have taken the same stance if it was not Horner and Red Bull who protested. At least take it on the chin, and move on.


You make no sense. It doesn't bother you in the least that a team gained an unfair advantage that will affect the championship? Because that is my problem. And I even think it will HELP Red Bull.

#131 Nomore

Nomore
  • Member

  • 248 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:32

I love all the people in this thread who you rarely see post any more who have come out of hiding to tell us just how "fair" this (non) punishment is.

They all, of course, just happen to be fans of a particular driver. I don't understand what the point of giving your "opinion" is when it is clearly only based on your bias.


They want to participate in this farce, to make it look like some fans (openly biased fans) agree with this decision... :cool:

#132 EvanRainer

EvanRainer
  • Member

  • 1,364 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:34

The drivers were never an issue in the case, apart from them running with unpainted helmets. Is it not your own blind bias against a particular driving that is colouring your own opinion, because I see no counter argument from yourself, just a whine about how anybody who doesn't agree with whatever your stance is must be a rabid driver fan.


When did I say anything about the drivers being a problem? And I have already stated multiple times I thought it would be unfair to the drivers if they were punished for this.

Secondly, my post was very clear. It was referring about certain people. Here's a hint, it wasn't you, neither was it ALL fans of the particular driver. And I offered no counterargument exactly because it has nothing to do with the position they take. It's the fact that they take that position ONLY because of their bias. It's not EVERYONE that has that position.

#133 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 1,077 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:36

(and no, we don't need the picture again)

What picture?

#134 Crafty

Crafty
  • Member

  • 4,056 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:38

What picture?


Don't ask, someone will post it and I'll need the eye bleach again :D

#135 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,678 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:40

You make no sense. It doesn't bother you in the least that a team gained an unfair advantage that will affect the championship? Because that is my problem. And I even think it will HELP Red Bull.


Well, to be frank, I don't think they got an unfair advantage. Not more than they stand lose with the YDT. It will not affect the championship. If Horner would have taken a deep breath, and take some time to use his grey matter, and push for tests similar to what Mercedes has done, they would have been better off than they are now. Instead, he made a fool of himself, and bent down for the soap. Everyone would be better off giving Pirelli a chance to develop. But no, instead he tried to frekk merc and Brawn. It was plain dumb if you ask me, and counterproductive as you see.


#136 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,247 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:55

I love all the people in this thread who you rarely see post any more who have come out of hiding to tell us just how "fair" this (non) punishment is.

They all, of course, just happen to be fans of a particular driver. I don't understand what the point of giving your "opinion" is when it is clearly only based on your bias.

Err... Bollocks.

#137 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,660 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:55

You make no sense. It doesn't bother you in the least that a team gained an unfair advantage that will affect the championship? Because that is my problem. And I even think it will HELP Red Bull.

Just for the record: What's your opinion on the Ferrari test in this regard?
Ferrari conducted non-Pirelli specific testing during the Barcelona test, which was booked and paid for by the team itself rather than the tyre supplier. There was a run sheet from the Barcelona test that showed it conducting 'balance tests' in the middle of the day.
Furthermore, there was correspondence between Ferrari tyre engineer Hirohide Hamashima and Pirelli on May 3, after the test, talking about details of Pirelli data from the runs.

I would expect that those who are fuming about advantage gained by Mercedes should be fuming about Ferrari's unfair advantage as well.

#138 fenixracing

fenixracing
  • Member

  • 340 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:58

im baised i admit that my love for merc and mclaren are from the old lemans days.
i dont post mutch because of my writting.
buth this annoyed me very hard ppl only wanne see wath they wanne see (or read in this case)
if ppl realy read everything realy carefull they woud have read they the tyres merc used werent even 2013 tyres.
the fact that the fia realy quick say that Ferrari test was okey, because they used a 2011 car. While they broke even more rules then merc and did it with the 2013 tyres.
mde this a bs story.
for me it looked more cover up from the fia. They agreed with the Ferrari test because they coudnt prove it was a full spec 2011 car there also wasnt any overviewing from the fia.
they just did with merc what would be right thing to do. buth somewhere i think they never expected a big penalty.the fact that merc not even got a fine proves that for me.
this story is just a big ass saving from the fia.

#139 EvanRainer

EvanRainer
  • Member

  • 1,364 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 22 June 2013 - 11:01

Just for the record: What's your opinion on the Ferrari test in this regard?
Ferrari conducted non-Pirelli specific testing during the Barcelona test, which was booked and paid for by the team itself rather than the tyre supplier. There was a run sheet from the Barcelona test that showed it conducting 'balance tests' in the middle of the day.
Furthermore, there was correspondence between Ferrari tyre engineer Hirohide Hamashima and Pirelli on May 3, after the test, talking about details of Pirelli data from the runs.

I would expect that those who are fuming about advantage gained by Mercedes should be fuming about Ferrari's unfair advantage as well.


I don't like the smell of it.

Advertisement

#140 EvanRainer

EvanRainer
  • Member

  • 1,364 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 22 June 2013 - 11:02

Err... Bollocks.


Again, not referring to everyone that is on the Merc side. But in any case lets, drop it. It's just amusing to me.

#141 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,247 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 22 June 2013 - 11:11

Again, not referring to everyone that is on the Merc side. But in any case lets, drop it. It's just amusing to me.

Red Bull fan by any chance?
Now that would be ironic.

#142 Fangiola

Fangiola
  • Member

  • 316 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 22 June 2013 - 11:19

I love all the people in this thread who you rarely see post any more who have come out of hiding to tell us just how "fair" this (non) punishment is.

They all, of course, just happen to be fans of a particular driver. I don't understand what the point of giving your "opinion" is when it is clearly only based on your bias.


Biased or not. they are entitled to it (their opinion) and it is their right. As much as you don't like it.
whilst on the topic, there are as much posters who hate the said driver and would rather see his team suffer rather than deal with the facts on the table. it works both ways you see.

mercedes has been investigated, a case brought against them, tribunal found them to have acted in good faith although a bit complicit and a reprimand issued. FIA has also been found to be subtly culpable in all of this and should get their house in order. Case closed, lets move on.

#143 EvanRainer

EvanRainer
  • Member

  • 1,364 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 22 June 2013 - 11:22

Red Bull fan by any chance?


Yes I root for Red Bull. And I didn't want to see Merc or its drivers hurt by a punishment.

I have clearly stated what my biggest problem with the situation is.

#144 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,660 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 22 June 2013 - 11:24

I don't like the smell of it.

It's just a smell to you, but to me it is blatant in-season track testing conducted and directed by the Ferrari team for the benefit of the 2013 program (opposed to a Pirelli tyre test for 2014 development).

#145 Nomore

Nomore
  • Member

  • 248 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 22 June 2013 - 11:24

Just for the record: What's your opinion on the Ferrari test in this regard?
Ferrari conducted non-Pirelli specific testing during the Barcelona test, which was booked and paid for by the team itself rather than the tyre supplier. There was a run sheet from the Barcelona test that showed it conducting 'balance tests' in the middle of the day.
Furthermore, there was correspondence between Ferrari tyre engineer Hirohide Hamashima and Pirelli on May 3, after the test, talking about details of Pirelli data from the runs.

I would expect that those who are fuming about advantage gained by Mercedes should be fuming about Ferrari's unfair advantage as well.


Why anyone didn't face Ferrari in a court ?...why anyone is not protesting Ferrari ?...just for curiosity ? why ?...still waiting

Im still waiting that someone to protest Ferrari test...why mercedes didn't open a case and face ferrari in a court... still waiting

and i'm not speaking about the ridiculous IT...but a real court in Paris ? but if they like they can make the ridiculous IT... still waiting

Why Red Bull protest Mercedes test and not Ferrari test ?...who is more a threat for Red Bull, Ferrari or Mercedes ?..still waiting

The only thing that im not waiting is for some "Ferrari haters" ..they are still there

#146 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 1,337 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 22 June 2013 - 11:27

Only rookies will suffer from this penalty and they did nothing wrong. There are not a lot of chances for them to drive an F1 car these days.

Mercedes still got an unfair advantage compared to others. What a pointless penalty.

#147 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,660 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 22 June 2013 - 11:28

Why anyone didn't face Ferrari in a court ?...why anyone is not protesting Ferrari ?...just for curiosity ? why ?...still waiting

Im still waiting that someone to protest Ferrari test...why mercedes didn't open a case and face ferrari in a court... still waiting

and i'm not speaking about the ridiculous IT...but a real court in Paris ? but if they like they can make the ridiculous IT... still waiting

Why Red Bull protest Mercedes test and not Ferrari test ?...who is more a threat for Red Bull, Ferrari or Mercedes ?..still waiting

The only thing that im not waiting is for some "Ferrari haters" ..they are still there

Dude, my response is not about protests or legality. My post is about advantage gained.
Do you believe Ferrari has gained from their tests relative to other teams? I believe they did. Massively.

#148 Nomore

Nomore
  • Member

  • 248 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 22 June 2013 - 11:58

Dude, my response is not about protests or legality. My post is about advantage gained.
Do you believe Ferrari has gained from their tests relative to other teams? I believe they did. Massively.


for sure no one test because there is nothing to learn, they are not dumb...testing it cost a lot and quite a lot.
the differenc :

Ferrari test was legal

if someone thinks is illegal (break a rule), then straight forward to the court...

like RB and Ferrari did with Mercedes test

P.S a real court in Paris or Strasbourg

Edited by Nomore, 22 June 2013 - 12:06.


#149 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 6,630 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 June 2013 - 18:10

The part where the Independent Tribunal, having heard all the evidence, said that Merc acted in good faith,


I know the various and asundry meanings of good faith - and not one of them includes acting with fore-knowledge of wrongdoing to gain an unfair advantage in a competitive arena.

had no intention to gain an unfair sporting advantage, disclosed the essence of what they were doing to the FIA and had no reason to think approval hadn't been given.


Merc had every intention of gaining an unfair sporting advantage. They used their 2013 car, their 2013 drivers and tested 2013 tyres among others, over 600 miles of testing time - they had the opportunity to obtain feedback from their drivers. Are you telling me they believed they would obtain no performance gains whatsoever?

Why did they keep the test to themselves - not just "private" from race fans, but "secret" from other teams - surely they didn't believe the other teams would fanboy their drivers did they? Why did they have their drivers in camouflage helmets? Merc's explanation: those things were "unfortunate".

Why would a seasoned F1 guru like Brawn suddenly believe that inconclusive letters from the FIA speaking of possibilities, together with an ambiguously worded interpretation of them from his legal counsel, was sufficient permission to carry out the test? Does that smack of good faith to you or a basis for further inquiry of the FIA?

Think about that; Brawn and crew did not go to the FIA for clarification; Brawn and crew went to outside legal counsel. You know when clients seek counsel rather than regulators in this type of situation? When the client is seeking a means of cheating and getting around the rules, not for clarifications and explanations of them, because that is part of the regulator's job - to interpret, explain, clarify and answer questions about its rulings. Furthermore, Brawn's counsel should have gone to the FIA on their behalf to clarify - not give ambiguous advice based on their reading of the letters. Everyone involved knew all of this - I am not inventing the wheel here.

So what does Brawn to do when everything he has regarding the legality of the test is ambiguous and/or requires clarification?

He does the test.

And you find his "intent" to be innocent of the pursuit of an advantage? Really? Come on man.

Those are the independent tribunal's conclusions, that you somehow manage to read as 'cheating sc*mbags.'


Correct. Based on the above, it is clear to me that Mercedes has behaved in the manner of a group of lowdown, dirtbag cheats and gotten clean away with it.

I can't think of a reason why not. What are you suggesting?


It wasn't a suggestion, it was a question.

Edited by bourbon, 22 June 2013 - 20:29.


#150 eff1fan

eff1fan
  • Member

  • 299 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 22 June 2013 - 18:35

The so called 'verdict' very much mirrors everything about the business and management of F1:
corrupt to the core.