Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 2 votes

Red Bull and Ferrari to lead rebellion against FIA rules


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
226 replies to this topic

#51 cooper

cooper
  • Member

  • 388 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:55

It won't happen, RBR have too much to lose.. They are leading the WDC and WCC, now that the test was ruled illegal but Merc were cleared as they were "acting in good faith" there's no way they could get away with it (let alone get Pirelli to supply them with tyres!)..

The gain most likely isn't worth the risk! At least it wouldn't be if I was running the team.. Merc obviously did a risk assessment when they did the test and found that they could get away with minimal punishment and have gained a lot of data, RBR are most likely kicking themselves that they didn't take advantage of the situation when it was there...

Now all they can do is cry about it and say they will run their own test.. A little bit childish really but hey, you sometimes have to bend the rules to win! I have no doubt that RBR are still the prime contenders to win this year so I do not have much sympathy

Advertisement

#52 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 3,103 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:02

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


Mclaren were the main title contenders in 2007, they lost the wcc.

#53 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 934 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:08

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

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

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

#54 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,190 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:10

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


If you look at the article it admits half way through that Ferrari are not thinking of going so far as to run an illegal test, so it would only be Red Bull.

If the FIA writes to Pirelli telling them that they can't supply tyres for Red Bull's illegal test, quoting the clauses in the FIA/Pirelli contract about ensuring full sporting equality etc, pointing out they have already been reprimanded for the same thing, and threatening to fine Pirelli $100m if they do so, backed up with the threat of a civil lawsuit for breach of contract if they refuse to pay the fine, then what will Red Bull do? Buy in some tyres from Bridgestone or Hankook or Goodyear?

If so the advantage they'll get from their illegal running will be rather marginal - they could only really do stuff that they could have done at the factory on a test bench. Any aero work would be invalidated by the irrelevance of the tyres. Therefore the FIA wouldn't need to do much more than ban them for a race or two, or dock them maybe 50 constructors' points plus 25 points each for the drivers, to make Red Bull wish they had not bothered.

#55 Longtimefan

Longtimefan
  • Member

  • 2,734 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:11

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


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

#56 handel

handel
  • Member

  • 413 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:12

What a load of crap. Hope they get a hefty points penalty if they come out and make actual comments in-line with this story.

#57 handel

handel
  • Member

  • 413 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:13

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


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

#58 Massa

Massa
  • Member

  • 4,200 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:15

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

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



Ferrari never struggle with the tyres this year. Try again.

#59 werks prototype

werks prototype
  • Member

  • 5,526 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:17

Pfft. They know nothing of the crunch.


:) Yeah, but that was just a little day trip around the crunch!

Advertisement

#60 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:18

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


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

The Times story looks like BS.


#61 Massa

Massa
  • Member

  • 4,200 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:20

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



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

#62 learningtobelost

learningtobelost
  • Member

  • 668 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:34

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


Stupid argument.

In this example it would be similar to writing to the government to ask permission to remove money from a bank vault and receiving said permission.

The reason the Mercedes punishment was light is simple, the FIA created this situation. Mercedes were aware of the loophole they could exploit and did so expertly.

Horner and Co crying about it in the press is just a ploy to win sympathy with the fanbase, nothing more. If they actually went ahead and tested they would be slapped down hard under that old chestnut: "bringing the sport into disrepute".

This is pantomime, nothing more.

#63 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:34

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

It raises an interesting question, whether the test is mandatory, and if so, yeah, good luck to them then, should they rebel.

#64 MichaelPM

MichaelPM
  • Member

  • 2,585 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:34

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

#65 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:42

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


No it isn't.
The IT closed the loophole whereby it could be argued that a test conducted/organised by Pirelli could be considered exempt from Sporting Reg 22.

No team can use that argument again and as such would not have any form of mitigation for charges under that section and the infamous article 151c of the ISC. No team would seriously consider doing it, let alone announcing it to the world beforehand.




#66 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:43

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

I may dissent on this view. Judgment I think is what it is, because Mercedes received benefit of doubt by IT on bases of miscommunication and mismanagement by FiA of this case. This consideration might not apply to future cases.

#67 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,150 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:45

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

The clear lines are drawn by the IT last Friday. End of story.

#68 ZooL

ZooL
  • Member

  • 2,063 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:46

They are really afraid of Mercedes aren't they?

#69 oldracer1957

oldracer1957
  • Member

  • 202 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:51

I just hope RedBull and Ferrari test and then get a hefty penalty and race ban from FIA... harharharhar!

#70 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 934 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:52

End of story.

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

#71 Freung

Freung
  • Member

  • 129 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:53

:rotfl:

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

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

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


Exactly...astonished by the posters who suggest they can choose
to have this test and skip the YDT ..Hindsight is incredible but can also get one banned.!!! The system is not that perfect but is surely isnt that rudimentary.

#72 Freung

Freung
  • Member

  • 129 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:55

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


Propaganda :well: :wave:


#73 Freung

Freung
  • Member

  • 129 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:56

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


(own propaganda comes back to haunt) haha


#74 Freung

Freung
  • Member

  • 129 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:01

Why would they get a ban?

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

(sic) 'That is the precident' ,, doesnt quite work like that im afraid .!! lol
You need to read and understand exactly what happened and why.Then and only then will you realise that it doesnt work in the you suggest.

#75 Freung

Freung
  • Member

  • 129 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:03

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


TBH i am sure most literate posters understand this very very well. I think they are just bitter re the outcome of this whole affair and are openly and verbally sulking.
Perfectly understandable but not very constructive at all.


#76 Freung

Freung
  • Member

  • 129 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:06

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

Simply because there are lots of mitigating factors you are so obviously not taking into account..lol. look at the ruling man,,it has been made already. The case is now closed. oh well. :well:

#77 Freung

Freung
  • Member

  • 129 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:10

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

The Times story looks like BS.

Scary that this needs to explained to so many,so many times.!!! :confused:

#78 string158

string158
  • Member

  • 190 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:28

Christian Horner is a very whiney man.


This.

#79 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,150 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:29

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

Only people with closed minds keep denying a simple truth.

Advertisement

#80 femi

femi
  • Member

  • 6,203 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:58

They are really afraid of Mercedes aren't they?


They have seen the potential and would do all they can to introduce disruption. CH even submitted to the tribunal recommending Merc should be fined $100Million.

#81 1Devil1

1Devil1
  • Member

  • 2,445 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:08

It's funny because the FIA opened a whole can of worms being that "sensible" in the case Mercedes. I would feel exactly the same way as Red Bull - Mercedes obviously cheated, got no punishment at all, and the circus goes on. I don't know how anybody could compare that with taking into of grey areas of the technical regulation - It's always a case of interpretation and Newey (and Brawn, or Ferrari or Renault or Michelin in the past) knows what he is doing but to breach a clear and simple rule as "in season - testing with a current car" is forbidden clearly plays in a different league. Would have the same thought as RedBull "Mercedes did breach the rules and got away with it" let's do it the same. Funny that Mercedes used that kind of argumentation "Ferrari did so we were allowed too - there is no difference between a 2011 and 2013 car". In the end RedBull and Ferrari will keep it quiet. Bernie will take car of it..

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


#82 Coops3

Coops3
  • Member

  • 1,572 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:08

:rotfl:

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

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

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


:up: Spot on.

#83 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 934 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:12

Only people with closed minds keep denying a simple truth.

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

#84 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,194 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:18

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

I'll have a go.

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

Edit: End of story. :)

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


#85 halifaxf1fan

halifaxf1fan
  • Member

  • 4,846 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:21

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

#86 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 934 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:22

I'll have a go.

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

Edit: End of story. :)

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

#87 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,194 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:25

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

Righto. Thanks for the detailed critique.
Maybe you could post your version? I'm sure it's interesting.

#88 Coops3

Coops3
  • Member

  • 1,572 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:25

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


So which parts do you not agree with?

#89 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 934 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:32

So which parts do you not agree with?

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

What parts I agree with is therefore irrelevant.

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


#90 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,150 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:32

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

Two possibilities:
- They won't get any tyres (most likely)
- Somehow they get them and practice. The FIA invites them to the International Tribunal where they'll be handed a pretty heavy sentence (race bans, 150 points deduction or something like that) because they - unlike Mercedes - have not handled "in good faith", according to the Tribunal.


#91 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,194 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:32

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

Ross Brawn will piss himself laughing?

#92 1Devil1

1Devil1
  • Member

  • 2,445 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:36

I'll have a go.

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

Edit: End of story. :)


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

#93 Coops3

Coops3
  • Member

  • 1,572 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:38

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

What parts I agree with is therefore irrelevant.


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

#94 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,194 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:39

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

Read the judgement - it's very clear.

#95 wingwalker

wingwalker
  • Member

  • 6,326 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:41

As it's been said, they can't pretend they thought it's ok with the rules like Mercedes did anymore, so this time a penalty would be more severe. But I'm not surprised they're angry after the Mercedes got a non-penalty for serious breach of the rules which undeniably brought them a huge advantage. The only solution I see is to conduct the same test for all the teams sans Mercedes, but even that wouldn't be perfect as Mercedes have the advantage of using gained knowledge in more GP weekends.

#96 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 1,592 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:42

People are getting carried away by a story that has no quotes and is mere speculation on the part of one hack.

Mercedes knew the rules and all this 'acting in good faith' stuff we are hearing is nonsense. They surely learned a hec of a lot about their current car during this test which is a point that few of their defenders seem willing to face up to.

Astonishing that a poster on here is calling for RBR and Ferrari to be banned for bringing the sport into disrepute. Hilarious to boot!

#97 Massa

Massa
  • Member

  • 4,200 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:43

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



Spot on.

If Mercedes did nothing wrong, and if Mercedes had a agreement of the FIA, why they had a penalty ?


#98 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 934 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:44

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

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

#99 Coops3

Coops3
  • Member

  • 1,572 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:49

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


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

Advertisement

#100 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 934 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:53

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

I did not necessarily disagree, but I asked for example of a "simple truth" that I was to closed minded to accept. He took the challenge and, in my opinion, he failed. Of course, the reason he failed, in my opinion, might just be because I am closed minded.