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

#101 Fourjays

Fourjays
  • Member

  • 240 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:56

Some people here really need to go back and read the judgement. The reason Mercedes got a fairly light penalty is crystal clear - it was an FIA screw up as much as a Mercedes/Pirelli screw up and/or cheat. Rather than do a Moseley and hand out a unfair, unjust and heavily agenda driven penalty (some here seem to have loved those days :rolleyes:) they did the only sensible thing and negated the advantage gained by banning them from the young drivers test. Which is of arguably more value to teams than a test with tyres that won't be used.

It's really no surprise Formula One is in the state it is in if the fans on this board are in any way representative of the whole fanbase. As pathetic as the teams are.

Advertisement

#102 halifaxf1fan

halifaxf1fan
  • Member

  • 4,846 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:56

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


Who would know if the drivers wore disguised helmets? Thats Mercedes definition of 'good faith'!

Edited by halifaxf1fan, 24 June 2013 - 13:01.


#103 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,221 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:59

I did not necessarily disagree...

...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.

That wasn't disagreement? :lol:
In other news the sky isn't blue and the Pope is an orthodox rabbi.

#104 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,366 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:04

Spot on.

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

Read the verdict :wave:

In summary: Mercedes thought they had permission, and the Tribunal found that they had good reason to think so. The fault here lies with the FIA's ambiguous communication. That's why they are not punished for the test as such, and got off with a reprimand.
The Tribunal concluded however that while the test was conducted "in good faith"- as the Tribunal puts it - Mercedes got some unfair advantage from the test. Excluding them from the YDT is a way to counterbalance that unfair advantage.

#105 ZooL

ZooL
  • Member

  • 2,063 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:06

Just remember the tribunal said Mercedes had, and I quote a "bona fide" test approval from Whiting and the FIA lawyer.
What's been clarified is that it wasn't Whiting or his FIA lawyers right to give Merc the test approval.
It was a tri-parte mess up.
RBR/Ferrari won't carry out this nonsensical threat because the rule has been clarified and they won't get approval from Whiting anymore.

#106 Fangiola

Fangiola
  • Member

  • 316 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:08

I do accept Mercedes got a favourable verdict and should count themselves lucky. However the tribunal has issued a reprimand and banned Mercedes from the YDT. Anyone who threatens to do the same based on the outcome of the judgment being an easy thing to deal with does so at their peril. I mean the FIA has issued their interpretation and everyone is clear now what can and cannot be done. I think Redbull really wanted a judgement along the lines of allowing other teams to have their own private test as well to equalise whatever Mercedes might seemed to have gained and are using threats to try to force the hand of the FIA.

Horner has been guilty of bending technical regulations and all the FIA did was to ask them to remove whatever technical infringement from their car with no subsequent punishment. I didn't hear Horner complain then or did he.

#107 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,366 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:08

Who would know if the drivers wore disguised helmets? Thats Mercedes definition of 'good faith'!

I think that if Vettel and Webber show up at Silverstone - with 9 other teams and a lot of journalists around - they will be recognised before they put their helmets on or the moment they would put them off. And if they arrive already with their helmets on and simply don't take them off at all during and after the test, I think that'll raise some suspicions :D

#108 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 8,891 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:14

I've read so much nonsense about tyre gate and the Times article and this thread is just more of it. For such a simple issue, it seems to have confused the heck out of a lot of people who should know better!


#109 Fangiola

Fangiola
  • Member

  • 316 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:14

Read the verdict :wave:

In summary: Mercedes thought they had permission, and the Tribunal found that they had good reason to think so. The fault here lies with the FIA's ambiguous communication. That's why they are not punished for the test as such, and got off with a reprimand.
The Tribunal concluded however that while the test was conducted "in good faith"- as the Tribunal puts it - Mercedes got some unfair advantage from the test. Excluding them from the YDT is a way to counterbalance that unfair advantage.


:up: finally, someone who can interpret the verdict.

#110 Boxerevo

Boxerevo
  • Member

  • 1,932 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:16

The old big and the new young cheat masters crying :kiss:.

More than two can play this game now,i really hope.

Edited by Boxerevo, 24 June 2013 - 13:16.


#111 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 8,891 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:17

:up: finally, someone who can interpret the verdict.


Not really that difficult. Though as I neither love nor hate Mercedes, its easier to think clearly. :)

#112 Burtros

Burtros
  • Member

  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:18

As a McLaren fan I think this is all great, the FIA who I have always hated passionately are in the shit and its all their own making. This is now a proper little storm brewing and I was running out of things to keep me interested this year, but here there are so many entertaining plot lines!

Mercedes - and people who still say they did nothing wrong. Highly entertaining, but alas, Merc got away with murder IMHO because they were very clever. It shouldnt really be a surprise to anyone that the other teams are furious at that verdict.

Ferrari - still in shock that the FIA didnt engineer it in their favour somehow,

Red Bull - sore looses who have spent the last 3 years pushing the rule book to its limit only to find out they are still rank amateurs when it comes to facing the likes of Ross Brawn.



#113 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:20

Well, I think it is definitely wide open for teams to explore this area of the rules.

If I had a F1 team, I would already had plans to have a third party tire manufacturer fabricate test tires that would emulate to some degree the current tires and then run the 2011 car day and night at my test track. Even if the tires are not identical to Pirelli's, the value of this data would be tremendous to calibrate the wind tunnel and tune the CFD models.

Edited by fabr68, 24 June 2013 - 13:22.


#114 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:21

Not really, Pirelli stated it is not bound by that set of rules as a supplier.

I would love to see how this pans out. It seems you can have a 1.000km private test if you skip the YDT. I even think Ferrari would allow RB to test at Mugello or Fiorano.;)


Red Bull has the A1 ring, they don't need Ferrari's circuits haha :)

#115 Blinkandimgone

Blinkandimgone
  • Member

  • 35 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:26

Well the way I see it is that the rules have been blatently broken by Mercedes with no strong action being taken against them from the FIA. A backlash was bound to happen through the pure and simple unsporting behaviour of the team and the idiocy of the FIA. If this is all true I say "whats good for the goose is good for the gander"

#116 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:28

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

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

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


Surely the argument about full sporting equity would mean Red Bull WOULD get the test, not wouldn't?! Seriously Red Reni...

#117 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:30

Love how it's the same people in this thread arguing that RBR and Ferrari should be banned/disqualified if they do this are the same people in the Mercedes thread who argued they did nothing wrong and aren't guilty even though they were proven to be.

#118 Nomore

Nomore
  • Member

  • 248 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:32

As a Ferrari fan, i'm not interested what Ferrari says but what they will do.

Words (as emails) are useless, facts are important...will they raise the game in another court ? will they quite Formula 1 ? will they cheat and also put a 2013 car with Alonso & Massa and call it a "Pirelli test" ?...whatever they do i'm interested to know, but if they chose to do "nothing" i'll be disgusted.

#119 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,221 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:33

Love how it's the same people in this thread arguing that RBR and Ferrari should be banned/disqualified if they do this are the same people in the Mercedes thread who argued they did nothing wrong and aren't guilty even though they were proven to be.

I think you're mixing up 'would' and 'should'.


Advertisement

#120 Massa

Massa
  • Member

  • 4,280 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:45

Read the verdict :wave:

In summary: Mercedes thought they had permission, and the Tribunal found that they had good reason to think so. The fault here lies with the FIA's ambiguous communication. That's why they are not punished for the test as such, and got off with a reprimand.
The Tribunal concluded however that while the test was conducted "in good faith"- as the Tribunal puts it - Mercedes got some unfair advantage from the test. Excluding them from the YDT is a way to counterbalance that unfair advantage.



So Mercedes didn't have to be punished. It's FIA fault at 100%. The unfair advantage Mercedes got was because of the FIA ambiguous communication. After said this, i can't understand how you can think do a test with current tyres and current car could be allowed.

I understand Ferrari and Red Bull, they have been screwed, even if it's a little advantage.

If Mercedes have a dominant weekend at Silverstone, the FIA will be in trouble.

Edited by Massa, 24 June 2013 - 13:46.


#121 chrisj

chrisj
  • Member

  • 578 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:47

Why doesn't Red Bull (or any other team) just give Pirelli a 2013 car to use as they see fit?

#122 F1Newbie

F1Newbie
  • Member

  • 774 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:47

People do realise the reason Mercedes some how got "away" with this it's because the FIA ( Charlie Whiting and FIA lawyer) and Pirelli ( it was a Pirelli test) were also "guilty" as well? If Ferrari or/and Red Bull do test on their own, they will get at least a 100M fines.

#123 swerved

swerved
  • Member

  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:53

People do realise the reason Mercedes some how got "away" with this it's because the FIA ( Charlie Whiting and FIA lawyer) and Pirelli ( it was a Pirelli test) were also "guilty" as well? If Ferrari or/and Red Bull do test on their own, they will get at least a 100M fines.



Okay Jean, Thanks, but can i make a suggestion ? If you communicate that to Luca & Dieter could you do so in an email please, rather than via telephone, oh and be sure to CC everyone,


#124 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,366 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:09

So Mercedes didn't have to be punished. It's FIA fault at 100%. The unfair advantage Mercedes got was because of the FIA ambiguous communication. After said this, i can't understand how you can think do a test with current tyres and current car could be allowed.

What test? Where did I say what?

#125 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,417 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:12

What if they just show up at the YDT with their top drivers?


The FIA delegate at the test will tell the current drivers to scram. And if Red Bull or Ferrari defy him and put a current race driver in the car and send him out, the FIA delegate will report them to the stewards for a breach of Article 22.4(h)(i), which covers the rookie test, and stipulates: "No driver who has competed in more than two F1 World Championship races may take part in this test"



#126 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,417 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:14

Why doesn't Red Bull (or any other team) just give Pirelli a 2013 car to use as they see fit?


Why don't you give me £1m?

Same reason, I suppose.

#127 Fangiola

Fangiola
  • Member

  • 316 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:20

Why doesn't Red Bull (or any other team) just give Pirelli a 2013 car to use as they see fit?


Mercedes did and see all the nonsense that came out of that :)

any way Redbull are denying they ever said they will do a private test of their own.

Redbull deny allegations of private test

Edited by Fangiola, 24 June 2013 - 14:26.


#128 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,661 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:25

Why doesn't Red Bull (or any other team) just give Pirelli a 2013 car to use as they see fit?


That's what they should have done by Montreal, latest. They screwed that up.


#129 CF22

CF22
  • Member

  • 386 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:27

The FIA delegate at the test will tell the current drivers to scram. And if Red Bull or Ferrari defy him and put a current race driver in the car and send him out, the FIA delegate will report them to the stewards for a breach of Article 22.4(h)(i), which covers the rookie test, and stipulates: "No driver who has competed in more than two F1 World Championship races may take part in this test"


The FIA should allow current drivers test at the rookie test then.

#130 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,661 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:29

The FIA should allow current drivers test at the rookie test then.


why?

#131 st99

st99
  • Member

  • 379 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:34

Red Bull denies plot to mimic Mercedes test
According to Red Bull's Dr Helmut Marko, the team isn't going to break the rules


Jun.24 (GMM) Red Bull on Monday was quick to officially deny reports it is considering breaking the rules as a counter-punch to the 'test-gate' scandal verdict.
According to The Times, the world champion team is reportedly so furious about Mercedes' lenient penalties that it is considering boycotting next month's young drivers test at Silverstone.

In its place, Red Bull - and possibly also Ferrari - would reportedly stage their own private, three-day test, in a directly confrontational move against the FIA, who might be hard pressed to issue penalties beyond the kind of benign 'reprimand' dealt to Mercedes.
But Red Bull's Dr Helmut Marko told Sport Bild on Monday: "Of course we wouldn't break the rules."
However, Marko made clear Red Bull's view that banning Mercedes from the Silverstone test next month is hardly a proportional punishment.
"You can't really try anything in the young drivers test," he said.
"The drivers at the wheel are just learning about formula one, while Mercedes had three days with their regular drivers."

http://www.motorspor...-mercedes-test/

Edited by st99, 24 June 2013 - 14:34.


#132 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,372 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:41

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.

Yup and you loose two teams (RB and TR) or the longest standing brand in F1 (Ferrari) with its engines for Sauber/Torro Rosso. The FIA is more cornered than they think.

Some people here really need to go back and read the judgement. The reason Mercedes got a fairly light penalty is crystal clear - it was an FIA screw up as much as a Mercedes/Pirelli screw up and/or cheat. Rather than do a Moseley and hand out a unfair, unjust and heavily agenda driven penalty (some here seem to have loved those days :rolleyes:) they did the only sensible thing and negated the advantage gained by banning them from the young drivers test. Which is of arguably more value to teams than a test with tyres that won't be used.

It's really no surprise Formula One is in the state it is in if the fans on this board are in any way representative of the whole fanbase. As pathetic as the teams are.

I think Merc threatened to leave and the blame was shoved to FIA by the IT.

A YDT is nowhere near as usefull as a private test,
- using your racing drivers
- no red flags from other teams
- no distractions
- the tire supplier is there for you and not nine others as well.
- no unwanted viewers of your upgrades (of course they had them, who could check that besides Merc crew?)

#133 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 1,752 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:42

It would be stupid for Ferrari to risk it. They are (one of) the best teams on tyres anyway and they probably already got good info. from their own tests.

#134 e34

e34
  • Member

  • 718 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:43

Well, I think it is definitely wide open for teams to explore this area of the rules.

If I had a F1 team, I would already had plans to have a third party tire manufacturer fabricate test tires that would emulate to some degree the current tires and then run the 2011 car day and night at my test track. Even if the tires are not identical to Pirelli's, the value of this data would be tremendous to calibrate the wind tunnel and tune the CFD models.


Anyways, that would have been legal always, and it is legal now.

What Ferrari should do is to paint the 2013 car in full Marlboro colors and race it in Mugello or Fiorano till somebody asks something. And then, with a straight face, say "No way that's a 2013 car. Tobacco advertising is banned. That is just a publicity stunt or something, because you couldn't race a Marlboro car in a current GP even if you wanted. And, anyway, we don't want... ".

After all, everybody should agree that a Marlboro painted car does not conform to this year regulations.


#135 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,105 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 24 June 2013 - 14:55

Why doesn't Red Bull (or any other team) just give Pirelli a 2013 car to use as they see fit?


The same reason that holds anything in F1 back, the teams are too darn stupid to put their own interests behind the good of the sport. If a team offered to provide a car, every other team would cry foul in the belief the tyres would then suit that one car.

#136 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:05

Anyways, that would have been legal always, and it is legal now.

What Ferrari should do is to paint the 2013 car in full Marlboro colors and race it in Mugello or Fiorano till somebody asks something. And then, with a straight face, say "No way that's a 2013 car. Tobacco advertising is banned. That is just a publicity stunt or something, because you couldn't race a Marlboro car in a current GP even if you wanted. And, anyway, we don't want... ".

After all, everybody should agree that a Marlboro painted car does not conform to this year regulations.


The car cannot "substantially conform" to the Technical Regulations.

The ban on tobacco advertising is not in the technical regulations. Lets just agree that the sooner the FIA/teams get sensible (and watertight) rules in place for testing, the better.


#137 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,972 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:10

The car cannot "substantially conform" to the Technical Regulations.

I don't have time to check the technical regulations, but is running on Pirelli tyres (or 'officially supplied' tyres) stipulated?


#138 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,417 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:16

I think Merc threatened to leave and the blame was shoved to FIA by the IT.


Is there any evidence for that? I didn't see any reports of threats by significant figures at Merc to pull out e.g. major shareholders such as Wolff and Lauda, or board members. There were a few stories suggesting they may quit but they weren't backed up by any credible or influential sources, and so it was pretty obviously hot air. The FIA knew that.

The FIA endorsed the interpretation of Article 22 which Mercedes then took when they did the test, and the tribunal then found Mercedes guilty of breaching that regulation without even considering whether the interpretation Mercedes took and Whiting and Bernard endorsed was correct. That's inherently unfair on Mercedes, which is why they had to basically let Mercedes off without punishment, and make a finding to the effect that Mercedes' intentions were pure, in order to head off the risk of Mercedes appealing. An appeal would have meant further digging around in Whiting's emails, which the tribunal seemed to be very keen to avoid.

If you look at it the tribunal went out of its way to avoid establishing why the FIA was saying at the hearing that Mercedes' test was clearly illegal, when prior to Red Bull and Ferrari's complaint the head of their legal department was happy that the regulations could be interpreted in a way that would have permitted the test. The tribunal went out of its way not to publish Whiting and Bernard's emails on the subject. It went out of its way to make a finding to the effect that Whiting behaved properly and fairly. It basically bent over backwards to protect the FIA - I can't work out why you think the FIA's own tribunal would shift blame onto the FIA? The reason the FIA still came out of it looking bad, and had to pay some of the costs, was because it was scarecely possible to protect them completely when they were clearly at fault. Q: "Can we test with a 2013 car?" A: "No it's against Article 22.1 SR" It's not difficult, is it?

They're lucky they didn't lose the case outright and end up paying all the costs.

#139 MikeV1987

MikeV1987
  • Member

  • 1,414 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:20

Can't F1 just move on already?

Advertisement

#140 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,661 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:21

Can't F1 just move on already?


F1 already has.


#141 Juggles

Juggles
  • Member

  • 896 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:26

I love the title of the thread. Red Bull and Ferrari have been leading rebellions against FIA rules for years. Even a year on I can't quite believe how readily that Red Bull ride height adjuster was brushed under the carpet. Now they complain because a team was actually punished for breaking the rules? I suppose it sets a dangerous precedent...

In short, I find their bleating hilarious and it fills me with joy.

#142 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:27

I don't have time to check the technical regulations, but is running on Pirelli tyres (or 'officially supplied' tyres) stipulated?


From memory yes but that doesn't really matter. "Substantially conforms" is vague terminology and one could easily argue that any car from 2009 onwards substantially conforms to the 2012/2013 Tech Regs. The 'two years old' is OK seems to have been accepted but I would have a tough time putting down on paper (technically speaking) why this is the case.

Edited by Dunder, 24 June 2013 - 15:29.


#143 OldSoldier2

OldSoldier2
  • Member

  • 144 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:30

Can't F1 just move on already?

Sure it can, but crap journalists like Eason think it is better to put something stupid/unfounded in their paper to increase sales. Typical Rupert Murdoch crap; a pox on English speaking nations for too long.

#144 kosmos

kosmos
  • Member

  • 6,660 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:37

Can't F1 just move on already?



Yes F1 can move to the next scandal, maybe in August.

#145 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 1,029 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:40

That wasn't disagreement? :lol:
In other news the sky isn't blue and the Pope is an orthodox rabbi.

Nope, it was neither an agreement or a disagreement, I simply pointed out that your truth's was nothing more than opinions. It is perfectly possible to agree, or support, an opinion while still baring in mind that it is based on loose ground and might have to be adjusted when, or if, new information or knowledge becomes available.

#146 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,626 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:49

Can't believe a news story from the gutter press got 4 forum pages of discussion.
It was clear from the beginning that this was a rubbish article.
I mean the verdict and FIA response to the verdict do no leave any room for rogue testing until procedures have been tightened up.

#147 plumtree

plumtree
  • Member

  • 712 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:53

Sure it can, but crap journalists like Eason think it is better to put something stupid/unfounded in their paper to increase sales. Typical Rupert Murdoch crap; a pox on English speaking nations for too long.

I'm waiting for his response. https://twitter.com/easonF1

#148 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,221 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:53

Nope, it was neither an agreement or a disagreement, I simply pointed out that your truth's was nothing more than opinions. It is perfectly possible to agree, or support, an opinion while still baring in mind that it is based on loose ground and might have to be adjusted when, or if, new information or knowledge becomes available.

'Merc had a go-ahead from the FIA to run their 2013 car.' - the Tribunal concluded that. Not my opinion.
'That's why the Tribunal gave a small penalty.' - The Tribunal's report stated that. Not my opinion.
The rest is so obvious a conclusion that it's not open to any reasonable argument. You can dispute that of course, but not if you won't give your view. Choice is yours.

#149 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 24 June 2013 - 15:58

People do realise the reason Mercedes some how got "away" with this it's because the FIA ( Charlie Whiting and FIA lawyer) and Pirelli ( it was a Pirelli test) were also "guilty" as well? If Ferrari or/and Red Bull do test on their own, they will get at least a 100M fines.

Then why can't Whiting and FIA extend the same courtesy to others as well? Red Bull should specifically ask for it. You gave the nod to Mercedes, similarly give it to us as well. There won't be any problem, we all would go to IT and then business as usual.

#150 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 1,029 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 24 June 2013 - 16:00

'Merc had a go-ahead from the FIA to run their 2013 car.' - the Tribunal concluded that. Not my opinion.

I think you'll see, if you study the verdict, that they concluded no such thing.

'That's why the Tribunal gave a small penalty.' - The Tribunal's report stated that. Not my opinion.
The rest is so obvious a conclusion that it's not open to any reasonable argument. You can dispute that of course, but not if you won't give your view. Choice is yours.

Well, since the first falls, the rest of your argument falls with it.

Try again :wave: