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

#351 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 6,085 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 26 June 2013 - 21:46

i agree wholeheartedly.......in the end, this is (and don't all shout here)....JUST MOTOR RACING....this is not life, or health, or nations being overturned by warmongering despots. It is sport. People would do well to remember this.


It is just motor racing in terms of entertainment. But it is in the category of competitive sports, which means sportsmanship comes into play.

Brawn, Lewis, Nico and the rest of Merc that participated, cheated. They have to be signaled out for the unfair advantage they obtained in extra testing time with their 2013 car and GP drivers, viewed telemetry and feedback, because the punishment did not fit the crime. So now they have to deal with public ridicule as the only recourse left to those who feel they got away with their wrongdoing.

They don't care at all. Brawn's attempt to persuade that the YDT will be a critical blow to Merc's development this season is comical. As Szoelloe said; Ross "Brawn'd" us. Well now he's pointing and laughing.

Edited by bourbon, 26 June 2013 - 21:48.


Advertisement

#352 dans79

dans79
  • Member

  • 279 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 26 June 2013 - 21:47

There's also the problem of forum fandads, whose objective is to feel superior to their fellow members, because they live lives that fail to satisfy their unrealistic craving for status...



lol, no feeling about it, some just are!

#353 dans79

dans79
  • Member

  • 279 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 26 June 2013 - 21:49

It is just motor racing in terms of entertainment. But it is in the category of competitive sports, which means sportsmanship comes into play.

Brawn, Lewis, Nico and the rest of Merc that participated, cheated. They have to be signaled out for the unfair advantage they obtained in extra testing time with their 2013 car and GP drivers, viewed telemetry and feedback, because the punishment did not fit the crime. So now they have to deal with public ridicule as the only recourse left to those who feel they got away with their wrongdoing.

They don't care at all. Brawn's attempt to persuade that the YDT will be a critical blow to Merc's development this season is comical. As Szoelloe said; Ross "Brawn'd" us. Well now he's pointing and laughing.


How about we talk about RBR's ride height adjustment system from last year, they got away free and clear didn't they.......

#354 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 10,422 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 26 June 2013 - 22:00

I wish we'd had this type of tribunal for McLaren/Ferrari spygate.
Suspect outcome would be slightly different. :well:

#355 halifaxf1fan

halifaxf1fan
  • Member

  • 4,846 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 26 June 2013 - 22:02

Hyperbole much? They keys to the podium?? Driving around in the same car they just finished a weekend GP using on foreign tyres. Damn what an unholy advantage.



The three races before the private three day test on the beautifully rubbered in Barcelona track - zero podiums. The two races after enjoying the extra 1000km of unsupervised track time with their top drivers and digesting their feedback and all that data - three podiums including a win!

That is a damn unholy advantage!

#356 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 6,085 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 26 June 2013 - 22:09

How about we talk about RBR's ride height adjustment system from last year, they got away free and clear didn't they.......


Ah, but did they INTEND for the height to adjust? Wasn't that the defense Brawn came up with for them? Oh wait - it was never proven...


Actually, we don't want to discuss that because it is OT. On point, The Tribunal found that Mercedes cheated (aka, broken the rules; contravened the regulations; went beyond the permission of the ruling body - or howeer you wish to put it).


#357 dans79

dans79
  • Member

  • 279 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 26 June 2013 - 22:18

Ah, but did they INTEND for the height to adjust? Wasn't that the defense Brawn came up with for them? Oh wait - it was never proven...


Actually, we don't want to discuss that because it is OT. On point, The Tribunal found that Mercedes cheated (aka, broken the rules; contravened the regulations; went beyond the permission of the ruling body - or howeer you wish to put it).


who cares they still had an illegal part, and by your reasoning should have been lynched for it.


also some reading for you...........

"Neither Pirelli nor Mercedes acted in bad faith at any material time... Both Pirelli and Mercedes disclosed to FIA at least the essence of what they intended to do in relation to the test and attempted to obtain permission for it; and Mercedes had no reason to believe that approval had not been given."

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/108181

#358 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 26 June 2013 - 22:26

I wish we'd had this type of tribunal for McLaren/Ferrari spygate.
Suspect outcome would be slightly different. :well:

Ha, so true. This reasonable outcome thing feels quite novel.


#359 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,087 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 26 June 2013 - 22:26

The three races before the private three day test on the beautifully rubbered in Barcelona track - zero podiums. The two races after enjoying the extra 1000km of unsupervised track time with their top drivers and digesting their feedback and all that data - three podiums including a win!

That is a damn unholy advantage!


Nope, Hamilton was on pole and finished 3rd in China. Race before the Mercedes were 3rd and 4th, not far behind the Bulls.

Bahrain and Spain were 4 stop races for a few drivers and teams. Monaco and Canada were the opposite in that nobody suffered excessive tyre wear.

Advertisement

#360 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 1,533 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 27 June 2013 - 07:12

The three races before the private three day test on the beautifully rubbered in Barcelona track - zero podiums. The two races after enjoying the extra 1000km of unsupervised track time with their top drivers and digesting their feedback and all that data - three podiums including a win!

That is a damn unholy advantage!

Debatable as to how well the track would have remained rubbered in after 2 days of trucks, fork-lifts, cranes, etc. removing the trackside/overhead GP infrastructure from the circuit. Would probably take a single car half a day of running to just clear the dust etc. off.

#361 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 1,589 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 27 June 2013 - 07:34

Ha, so true. This reasonable outcome thing feels quite novel.


Yes, an absolutely reasonable outcome but for the rest I don't agree. The big difference between the two cases, is that in the tyre-gate tribunal the FIA has admitted they have made a mistake in how they organise the sport regarding testing.

However critical I am about the handling of Spygate (IMHO Toyota had done exactly the same as McLaren), there is nothing in the setup of that affair that was the fault of the FIA. Meaning: the FIA had not, by unclear rulings or unclear roles of people like Whiting, made it attractive for McLaren to spy.

In this affair, with the whole Pirelli-situation, the FIA herself has created almost all the circumstances that led to tyregate. Hence I agree with posters who wanted an extra option on the poll: the FIA should be punished too for tyregate.

#362 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 27 June 2013 - 07:45

Charlie Whiting is usually the designated contact for such decisions

The FIA don't agree with that.

he even went to the legal department to get their input. Charlie + FIA lawyer to ANYONE means an OK.

Even if it's a conditional OK and the conditions aren't met?


#363 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 27 June 2013 - 07:46

I think if we've learnt anything in the past ten years or so it's that Charlie's opinion is just that, an opinion. How many times have teams had something approved/agreed with him only for it all to turn to mush when it turns out he wasn't the final arbiter?

Exactly.

#364 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 27 June 2013 - 07:48

But what was the answer? I'd assumed from reports that it was phrased as opinion not a statement of truth.

It was.

It said that, if certain conditions were met, it could be considered OK. Not even that if they were met it would be. And they weren't met.

It's all a bit of a fudge, but there you go.

#365 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 27 June 2013 - 07:50

Yet, according to you, Mercedes have benefited from cheating. So, however much you may disapprove of what they've done, you can't really say it was stupid, can you?

You can do something stupid, and still gain a benefit and get away with it.

#366 pUs

pUs
  • Member

  • 2,543 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 27 June 2013 - 07:57

You mean the list of things RB would have done if he had been savvy enough to take up the Pirelli offer.


Please, do tell me how and when Redbull was offered an in-season test with their current car. Details.

#367 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,633 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 27 June 2013 - 08:09

Please, do tell me how and when Redbull was offered an in-season test with their current car. Details.


Ask Horner


#368 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 1,533 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 27 June 2013 - 08:19

Please, do tell me how and when Redbull was offered an in-season test with their current car. Details.

Horner stated in a TV interview that RB had been asked and refused.

#369 Ricardo F1

Ricardo F1
  • Member

  • 38,322 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 27 June 2013 - 18:45

The FIA don't agree with that.

Even if it's a conditional OK and the conditions aren't met?

The conditions were down to Pirelli, not Mercedes to meet.


#370 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 27 June 2013 - 18:59

Yes, an absolutely reasonable outcome but for the rest I don't agree. The big difference between the two cases, is that in the tyre-gate tribunal the FIA has admitted they have made a mistake in how they organise the sport regarding testing.

However critical I am about the handling of Spygate (IMHO Toyota had done exactly the same as McLaren), there is nothing in the setup of that affair that was the fault of the FIA. Meaning: the FIA had not, by unclear rulings or unclear roles of people like Whiting, made it attractive for McLaren to spy.

In this affair, with the whole Pirelli-situation, the FIA herself has created almost all the circumstances that led to tyregate. Hence I agree with posters who wanted an extra option on the poll: the FIA should be punished too for tyregate.

Well we are teetering on the ragged edge of the topic but spygate was almost entirely invented by the FIA=Max, and Ferrari. The level of information that was actually shown to have passed was quite normal in F1 at the time, but Max and Todt managed to mix the entire Dossier into it. The crucial difference is Max's WMSC, which he controlled with his proxies and favours, versus the Tribunal which Todt conspicuously did not control. If the IT had judged spygate Renault would have done worse than McLaren. Now the IT looked at the FIA's role as you say, which the WMSC would never have done. Ross had his pretext and ran with it, and the IT treated everyone with respect.

Sometimes, things do get better.

#371 F1EC

F1EC
  • Member

  • 858 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 27 June 2013 - 20:27

The poll is lacking the option: "No fair. Mercedes should have been acquitted of any wrongdoing''.


:up:

#372 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,255 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 27 June 2013 - 21:04

The crucial difference is Max's WMSC, which he controlled with his proxies and favours, versus the Tribunal which Todt conspicuously did not control.

Sometimes, things do get better.


Seriously? It was such a blatant negotiated judgement. Everyone got part of what they wanted, nobody got everything. RBR and Ferrari got their guilty verdict but not the harsh penalty they wanted, the FIA got protection for Charlie Whiting and avoided having to go into too much detail about the level of its own collusion in Mercedes' plans for an obviously dodgy test but had to pay some of the costs and accept some of the responsibility for the debacle, Mercedes and Pirelli got clear tribunal findings absolving them of having acted dishonestly or in bad faith but didn't get the acquital they wanted. The costs were split equally,

If you have a fair and honest and impartial tribunal that kind of judgement would never, ever emerge. You'd have to make a decision on the substantive legal points e.g. the meaning of "underaken by" and somebody would turn out to be in the right and somebody else would get screwed. The kind of judgement we got comes about only by way of behind-the-scenes negotiation.

To say it was a judgement Todt could have written himself may well be an understatement - he probably did write it.

#373 Juggles

Juggles
  • Member

  • 896 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 27 June 2013 - 21:11

You can do something stupid, and still gain a benefit and get away with it.


In F1, if you gain a benefit and get away with it then it wasn't stupid. Not that Mercedes did get away with it: I think the value of the Mercedes test in Barcelona compared to the YDT has been overstated.

#374 dans79

dans79
  • Member

  • 279 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 27 June 2013 - 21:19

If you have a fair and honest and impartial tribunal that kind of judgement would never, ever emerge. You'd have to make a decision on the substantive legal points e.g. the meaning of "underaken by" and somebody would turn out to be in the right and somebody else would get screwed. The kind of judgement we got comes about only by way of behind-the-scenes negotiation.

To say it was a judgement Todt could have written himself may well be an understatement - he probably did write it.


You go through a lot of aluminum foil don't you?


#375 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 27 June 2013 - 21:24

Seriously? It was such a blatant negotiated judgement. Everyone got part of what they wanted, nobody got everything. RBR and Ferrari got their guilty verdict but not the harsh penalty they wanted, the FIA got protection for Charlie Whiting and avoided having to go into too much detail about the level of its own collusion in Mercedes' plans for an obviously dodgy test but had to pay some of the costs and accept some of the responsibility for the debacle, Mercedes and Pirelli got clear tribunal findings absolving them of having acted dishonestly or in bad faith but didn't get the acquital they wanted. The costs were split equally,

If you have a fair and honest and impartial tribunal that kind of judgement would never, ever emerge. You'd have to make a decision on the substantive legal points e.g. the meaning of "underaken by" and somebody would turn out to be in the right and somebody else would get screwed. The kind of judgement we got comes about only by way of behind-the-scenes negotiation.

To say it was a judgement Todt could have written himself may well be an understatement - he probably did write it.

Lol, it was too reasonable for you. The rule was badly written. Merc asked. The FIA laywer gave the green light to Brawn's interpretation. Others didn't like it. Didn't Todt's FIA argue for a more severe penalty?

The IT squared things up, within reason. The wording of the rule gave Merc the opportunity, together with a senior FIA official.

Things were not black and white, as the Tribunal recognised to their great credit.

#376 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,255 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 27 June 2013 - 22:43

Lol, it was too reasonable for you. The rule was badly written. Merc asked. The FIA laywer gave the green light to Brawn's interpretation. Others didn't like it. Didn't Todt's FIA argue for a more severe penalty?

The IT squared things up, within reason. The wording of the rule gave Merc the opportunity, together with a senior FIA official.

Things were not black and white, as the Tribunal recognised to their great credit.


No, things weren't black and white. The regulation was unclear. I spent the whole period while we were waiting for the tribunal arguing exactly that, which is why I thought Merc had a reasonable defence, since there was a possible inerpretation of the rule whereby they hadn't broken the rule, and the FIA had leant considerable weight to that interpretation.

But on the substantive issue as far as Mercedes goes, which was legality, the tribunal ignored Mercedes' main argument. Merc opened their testimony by saying "we're not guilty, we didn't undertake the test, we checked with the FIA before we participated in the test to ensure we wouldn't be deemed to have undertaken the test and we thought we had the go-ahead." But in the tribunal's findings, they start by saying that the regulation is clear and that Mercedes are guilty, then they deal with the issue of the alleged FIA approval only as a factor in potential mitigation. So they failed to demonstrate in their judgement that they had given any consideration at all to Merc's argument that they hadn't breached the regulations, they failed to make a clear finding about what the regulation in qustion actually means, and then they proceeded to make a load of findings for which there is little or no rationale in the judgement, all of which are exactly the findings you might have expected to come from a negotiated settlement of the matter.

And by the way, the idea that parties to an internal regulatory/disciplinary dispute would resolve the dispute by negotiation and mutual agreement is about as controversial as saying that litigants in the civil courts sometimes elect to settle before the matter goes to judgement. If I understand the tin foil reference, I should point out that what I'm saying is about as far from a conspiracy theory as you could get. It's the FIA's own tribunal, not a court. If the paries agree on an outcome in advance it is entirely in the tribunal members' interests to deliver the outcome the FIA and the other parties ask for - they still get paid either way and it makes life a great deal easier for them. It also makes it much more likely they will get further work from the tribunal in the future - the FIA appoints the members and choose which ones to invite to hear any particular case. It's no big deal, it's not a proper tribunal it's an internal FIA body, and there's nothing inherently more sinister about the idea it would be nobbled by Todt than there is about the idea that Mosley might, on occasion, have leant on the WMSC in its judicial functions.

#377 halifaxf1fan

halifaxf1fan
  • Member

  • 4,846 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 27 June 2013 - 22:51

Lol, it was too reasonable for you. The rule was badly written. Merc asked. The FIA laywer gave the green light to Brawn's interpretation. Others didn't like it. Didn't Todt's FIA argue for a more severe penalty?

The IT squared things up, within reason. The wording of the rule gave Merc the opportunity, together with a senior FIA official.

Things were not black and white, as the Tribunal recognised to their great credit.



The opportunity to 'square things up' was decidedly missed.

Imo, it doesn't really matter if Mercedes had intent to have an illegal test or if they participated in the test with complete innocence. The fact is that they participated in a 1000km unsupervised test over a 3 day period and now have a in their possession an illegal sporting advantage. The testing limits are one of the basic restrictions holding all the teams back and leveling the playing field, any team would benefit immensely from additional testing.

The tribunal, if they were to have squared things up, ought to have handed out a stiff penalty. Similar to spygate a team is effectively in possession of of 'stolen goods' integrated directly into the car, a race ban/ points deduction/ fine would be the only methods to remedy the situation as the 'goods' cannot be given back. Instead they give Mercedes a pat on the back.

Edited by halifaxf1fan, 28 June 2013 - 01:11.


#378 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 27 June 2013 - 22:55

The conditions were down to Pirelli, not Mercedes to meet.

Is it Pirelli's or Mercedes' responsibility to ensure Mercedes aren't breaking the rules?

#379 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 27 June 2013 - 22:58

In F1, if you gain a benefit and get away with it then it wasn't stupid. Not that Mercedes did get away with it: I think the value of the Mercedes test in Barcelona compared to the YDT has been overstated.

Disagree - some things that turn out well are lucky and stupid, whatever arena they're in. F1 is no exception.

Not that I'm saying the Mercedes test was stupid - saying that would depend on knowing things I don't know.

Advertisement

#380 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 27 June 2013 - 23:02

No, things weren't black and white. The regulation was unclear. I spent the whole period while we were waiting for the tribunal arguing exactly that, which is why I thought Merc had a reasonable defence, since there was a possible inerpretation of the rule whereby they hadn't broken the rule, and the FIA had leant considerable weight to that interpretation.

But on the substantive issue as far as Mercedes goes, which was legality, the tribunal ignored Mercedes' main argument. Merc opened their testimony by saying "we're not guilty, we didn't undertake the test, we checked with the FIA before we participated in the test to ensure we wouldn't be deemed to have undertaken the test and we thought we had the go-ahead." But in the tribunal's findings, they start by saying that the regulation is clear and that Mercedes are guilty, then they deal with the issue of the alleged FIA approval only as a factor in potential mitigation. So they failed to demonstrate in their judgement that they had given any consideration at all to Merc's argument that they hadn't breached the regulations, they failed to make a clear finding about what the regulation in qustion actually means, and then they proceeded to make a load of findings for which there is little or no rationale in the judgement, all of which are exactly the findings you might have expected to come from a negotiated settlement of the matter.

And by the way, the idea that parties to an internal regulatory/disciplinary dispute would resolve the dispute by negotiation and mutual agreement is about as controversial as saying that litigants in the civil courts sometimes elect to settle before the matter goes to judgement. If I understand the tin foil reference, I should point out that what I'm saying is about as far from a conspiracy theory as you could get. It's the FIA's own tribunal, not a court. If the paries agree on an outcome in advance it is entirely in the tribunal members' interests to deliver the outcome the FIA and the other parties ask for - they still get paid either way and it makes life a great deal easier for them. It also makes it much more likely they will get further work from the tribunal in the future - the FIA appoints the members and choose which ones to invite to hear any particular case. It's no big deal, it's not a proper tribunal it's an internal FIA body, and there's nothing inherently more sinister about the idea it would be nobbled by Todt than there is about the idea that Mosley might, on occasion, have leant on the WMSC in its judicial functions.

Well I didn't follow all the detail, to me it just looks like a respectful common-sense outcome that's way way better than what we had with Max.

Merc broke a rule but with mitigation, I don't have a problem with it. Everyone knew they weren't really supposed to test like that, but there was a loophole. F1 baby. No sado penalising this time just a near-restoration of equality and lessons learned. Respect all round. So things have got better, afaic.


#381 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 27 June 2013 - 23:03

No, things weren't black and white. The regulation was unclear. I spent the whole period while we were waiting for the tribunal arguing exactly that, which is why I thought Merc had a reasonable defence, since there was a possible inerpretation of the rule whereby they hadn't broken the rule, and the FIA had leant considerable weight to that interpretation.

But on the substantive issue as far as Mercedes goes, which was legality, the tribunal ignored Mercedes' main argument. Merc opened their testimony by saying "we're not guilty, we didn't undertake the test, we checked with the FIA before we participated in the test to ensure we wouldn't be deemed to have undertaken the test and we thought we had the go-ahead." But in the tribunal's findings, they start by saying that the regulation is clear and that Mercedes are guilty, then they deal with the issue of the alleged FIA approval only as a factor in potential mitigation. So they failed to demonstrate in their judgement that they had given any consideration at all to Merc's argument that they hadn't breached the regulations, they failed to make a clear finding about what the regulation in qustion actually means, and then they proceeded to make a load of findings for which there is little or no rationale in the judgement, all of which are exactly the findings you might have expected to come from a negotiated settlement of the matter.

And by the way, the idea that parties to an internal regulatory/disciplinary dispute would resolve the dispute by negotiation and mutual agreement is about as controversial as saying that litigants in the civil courts sometimes elect to settle before the matter goes to judgement. If I understand the tin foil reference, I should point out that what I'm saying is about as far from a conspiracy theory as you could get. It's the FIA's own tribunal, not a court. If the paries agree on an outcome in advance it is entirely in the tribunal members' interests to deliver the outcome the FIA and the other parties ask for - they still get paid either way and it makes life a great deal easier for them. It also makes it much more likely they will get further work from the tribunal in the future - the FIA appoints the members and choose which ones to invite to hear any particular case. It's no big deal, it's not a proper tribunal it's an internal FIA body, and there's nothing inherently more sinister about the idea it would be nobbled by Todt than there is about the idea that Mosley might, on occasion, have leant on the WMSC in its judicial functions.

What you say about all of this makes a lot of sense.

All I'd say is that not all of the interested parties were necessarily part of any negotiated settlement.

3 or 4 out of 5 would be plenty.

Edited by oetzi, 27 June 2013 - 23:04.


#382 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,201 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 27 June 2013 - 23:23

Is it Pirelli's or Mercedes' responsibility to ensure Mercedes aren't breaking the rules?

First and foremost the FIA's - and they made a mess of that, as the tribunal rightly concluded. Hence the decision they made.

#383 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 27 June 2013 - 23:37

First and foremost the FIA's - and they made a mess of that, as the tribunal rightly concluded. Hence the decision they made.

So the FIA are responsible for making sure teams don't break the rules, not the teams themselves?

So nobody can actually cheat, it's all the FIA's fault?

They're all missing a trick.



#384 dave34m

dave34m
  • Member

  • 440 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 28 June 2013 - 00:16

Horner stated in a TV interview that RB had been asked and refused.

Initially Horner said that they hadn't been asked and then changed his story. Has he been asked or explained why he lied in the first instance?

#385 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,255 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 28 June 2013 - 12:07

Well I didn't follow all the detail, to me it just looks like a respectful common-sense outcome that's way way better than what we had with Max.

Merc broke a rule but with mitigation, I don't have a problem with it. Everyone knew they weren't really supposed to test like that, but there was a loophole. F1 baby. No sado penalising this time just a near-restoration of equality and lessons learned. Respect all round. So things have got better, afaic.


Oh, I quite agree, there's a big difference between negotiating an outcome and then nobbling the tribunal to deliver it, and making up your mind on your own and then ramming that decision through the WMSC which you Chair yourself. It reflects Todt and Mosley's different leadership styles. People definitely prefer Todt's collegiate approach, and in this case it seems to have worked okay even though a lot of Vettel and Alonso's fanboys are still furious at the perceived leniency. They'll get over it.

The only problem with Todt's softly-softly approach is that it sometimes ends up as a "do nothing" approach. We have no Concorde agreement, no tyre supplier for next year, no agreement on cost controls (hence no agreement on testing, which is what brought about the situation where teams explored the limits of the regulations on testing), and so on.

And in other FIA championships it's even worse; he failed to push through any rule changes in WTCC until it reached the point where the cars were so dull and old-fashioned that all the manufacturers left, he allowed WRC to go into this season without any TV deals at all and with no functioning timing and scoring, he presided over the demise of FIA GT as a World Championship, etc. Mosley would simply not have allowed this sort of thing to occur. If Todt was any more laid back he'd be in a coma, and that brings its own problems. Whatever you think of Mosley, as Bernie said of Adolf, he knew how to get things done.

#386 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,201 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 28 June 2013 - 12:14

So the FIA are responsible for making sure teams don't break the rules, not the teams themselves?

So nobody can actually cheat, it's all the FIA's fault?

They're all missing a trick.

Read again, I said "first and foremost".
You're either a bad reader or simply living in denial.

Edited by scheivlak, 28 June 2013 - 12:15.


#387 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 29 June 2013 - 00:15

Oh, I quite agree, there's a big difference between negotiating an outcome and then nobbling the tribunal to deliver it, and making up your mind on your own and then ramming that decision through the WMSC which you Chair yourself. It reflects Todt and Mosley's different leadership styles. People definitely prefer Todt's collegiate approach, and in this case it seems to have worked okay even though a lot of Vettel and Alonso's fanboys are still furious at the perceived leniency. They'll get over it.

The only problem with Todt's softly-softly approach is that it sometimes ends up as a "do nothing" approach. We have no Concorde agreement, no tyre supplier for next year, no agreement on cost controls (hence no agreement on testing, which is what brought about the situation where teams explored the limits of the regulations on testing), and so on.

And in other FIA championships it's even worse; he failed to push through any rule changes in WTCC until it reached the point where the cars were so dull and old-fashioned that all the manufacturers left, he allowed WRC to go into this season without any TV deals at all and with no functioning timing and scoring, he presided over the demise of FIA GT as a World Championship, etc. Mosley would simply not have allowed this sort of thing to occur. If Todt was any more laid back he'd be in a coma, and that brings its own problems. Whatever you think of Mosley, as Bernie said of Adolf, he knew how to get things done.

Explored the limits? Fanboys?

God love you.

#388 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 29 June 2013 - 00:17

Read again, I said "first and foremost".
You're either a bad reader or simply living in denial.

'First and foremost', Mercedes are responsible for Mercedes' actions.

That's why the whole thing smells a bit off.

#389 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 29 June 2013 - 00:36

Horner stated in a TV interview that RB had been asked and refused.


Asked about an older car for testing and refused because it was and still is illegal

#390 halifaxf1fan

halifaxf1fan
  • Member

  • 4,846 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 30 June 2013 - 16:38

The three races before the private three day test on the beautifully rubbered in Barcelona track - zero podiums. The two races after enjoying the extra 1000km of unsupervised track time with their top drivers and digesting their feedback and all that data - three podiums including a win!

That is a damn unholy advantage!



Update that to - four podiums including two wins!


This certainly shows the value of a successful test. Mercedes are now at a similar race pace as RedBull and have cured their tire overheating problem which had them sliding backwards in the three races prior to their private tribunal sanctioned test.

Edited by halifaxf1fan, 30 June 2013 - 16:43.


#391 Peter Perfect

Peter Perfect
  • Member

  • 4,837 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 30 June 2013 - 16:46

Update that to - four podiums including two wins!

This certainly shows the value of a successful test. Mercedes are now at a similar race pace as RedBull and have cured their tire overheating problem which had them sliding backwards in the three races prior to their private tribunal sanctioned test.

It certainly goes to show that, for tyres issues anyway, there's no substitute for on-track testing. What Button would've given last year for 3 days of unlimited dry testing!

#392 ZooL

ZooL
  • Member

  • 2,063 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 30 June 2013 - 17:12

It certainly goes to show that, for tyres issues anyway, there's no substitute for on-track testing. What Button would've given last year for 3 days of unlimited dry testing!

Your saying 20 race distances and 60 practice sessions wasn't enough but 3 more would've made a difference?

Hmmm, it does not compute.

#393 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 6,085 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 30 June 2013 - 17:24

Update that to - four podiums including two wins!


This certainly shows the value of a successful test. Mercedes are now at a similar race pace as RedBull and have cured their tire overheating problem which had them sliding backwards in the three races prior to their private tribunal sanctioned test.


Yeah it is pretty pathetic. The thing is, I like Merc and its drivers and was looking forward to their finding success - but not through contravention of the regulations (i.e. cheating). It just taints the entirety of their program.

#394 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 961 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 30 June 2013 - 17:32

Update that to - four podiums including two wins!


This certainly shows the value of a successful test. Mercedes are now at a similar race pace as RedBull and have cured their tire overheating problem which had them sliding backwards in the three races prior to their private tribunal sanctioned test.

And rumors have it that Ferrari have tested not once, not twice but three times with a 2011 cars having 2013 bits. Or was it the other way around? Nobody can really tell...

Edited by ardbeg, 30 June 2013 - 17:35.


#395 study

study
  • Member

  • 2,452 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 30 June 2013 - 17:34

yeah its becoming more and more interesting with Ferrari, seems FIA brushed it under the carpet as fast they could.

#396 halifaxf1fan

halifaxf1fan
  • Member

  • 4,846 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 30 June 2013 - 17:43

And rumors have it that Ferrari have tested not once, not twice but three times with a 2011 cars having 2013 bits. Or was it the other way around? Nobody can really tell...



Don't know about Ferrari's tests with the legal old generation cars (modest results?) but the Mercedes test with the current 2013 cars probably focused on a particular goal, ie fixing rear tire over heating, has proven to be extremely successful and has put them on equal footing in race pace complementing their already series leading qualifying form.

Mercedes was a laughing stock in the three races prior moving down the order and the decision to take their chances with a sanction for cheating was the lesser of the two evils. It really worked out for them when the tribunal sanction was an 'attaboy!'

Edited by halifaxf1fan, 30 June 2013 - 17:51.


#397 Mr.Wayne

Mr.Wayne
  • Member

  • 572 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 30 June 2013 - 17:47

yeah its becoming more and more interesting with Ferrari, seems FIA brushed it under the carpet as fast they could.

The only thing that remains true with Ferrari is that they were the only team who knew what the right tyre strategy was for Barcelona...
Which, btw, was the race immediately after their test.
Which, btw, was *also* in Barcelona...

However, it seems like they interpolated their findings in their wrong way because the car is not really moving fwd... so, to fix it, there are now rumours of additional Ferrari tests to be carried around.

But let's not forget that the ones who cheat are the guys from the energy drink's company...

#398 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 961 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 30 June 2013 - 17:55

Don't know about Ferrari's tests with the legal old generation cars

Was it legal? I don't know either, but apparently we, and FiA, are just supposed to take their word for it. I don't really mind, but considering the amount of venom you have spitted out towards Mercedes the last few weeks I thought maybe you'd be interested in having look around your own quarters a bit. Nobody is innocent in F1.

#399 Ricardo F1

Ricardo F1
  • Member

  • 38,322 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 30 June 2013 - 18:09

Good to know that everybody here thinks that teams sit on their hands between races and don't work on upgrades ever.



Advertisement

#400 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 1,664 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 30 June 2013 - 18:19

Update that to - four podiums including two wins!


This certainly shows the value of a successful test. Mercedes are now at a similar race pace as RedBull and have cured their tire overheating problem which had them sliding backwards in the three races prior to their private tribunal sanctioned test.


I'd say certainly say they are insulting the intelligence of everyone when they say they didn't learn anything about their car from this test.