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

#201 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 1,160 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 25 June 2013 - 02:17

Where?

In you originl post in this matter. I have quoted it in it's whole form at least twice now, apart from the excerpts. I will quote it again below.

Just quote the question and answer. Or stop making stuff up.
Here's the question. Again. For about the fourth time...

That's not the question. You have no idea what we are discussing, do you? We are discussing the truth. The simple truth. A poster I no longer remember accused me of being to closed minded to accept a simple truth. I hinted that his "They cheated and got awaya with it. End thread" (not exact words) was not a simple truth. In fact, it was not even a truth. So I challenged him to bring forward a simple truth in this case. He backed off, instead you took up the challenge and wrote, as an example of a simple truth:

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. :)

Now you answer: Do you believe the bolded part to be true?
That is the question here. I claimed it's not true. You ask me why. "Why is the non-truth not true?"
It could be very philosophical, but I believe it is as simple as you not wanting to accept that your statement is false. You want to make it true by equalling the "belive they have permission" with "they have permission". It's not the same.
-"Do you know how fast you where driving there, sir?"
-"No more than 60, officer!"
-"Actually, it was 93"
-"Oh, I really believed it was 60, officer"
-"Really sir? Ok, go ahead then and have a nice day"


Advertisement

#202 lbennie

lbennie
  • Member

  • 2,230 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 25 June 2013 - 02:59

Red Bull don't need pirelli's help to do this.

just run any sort of rubber, and do 1000k's of aero testing/put some miles on their dodgy KERS and try and get it to stop failing during races.




#203 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,672 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 25 June 2013 - 07:24

In you originl post in this matter. I have quoted it in it's whole form at least twice now, apart from the excerpts. I will quote it again below.

That's not the question. You have no idea what we are discussing, do you? We are discussing the truth. The simple truth. A poster I no longer remember accused me of being to closed minded to accept a simple truth. I hinted that his "They cheated and got awaya with it. End thread" (not exact words) was not a simple truth. In fact, it was not even a truth. So I challenged him to bring forward a simple truth in this case. He backed off, instead you took up the challenge and wrote, as an example of a simple truth:

Merc had a go-ahead from the FIA to run their 2013 car.

Now you answer: Do you believe the bolded part to be true?
That is the question here. I claimed it's not true. You ask me why. "Why is the non-truth not true?"
It could be very philosophical, but I believe it is as simple as you not wanting to accept that your statement is false.

Yes.
They were given what the Tribunal called a 'qualified permission'.
The Tribunal decided that Merc 'attempted to obtain permission for it (the test); and Mercedes had no reason to believe that approval had not been given.'
They decided that 'the testing would... not have been carried out... if that qualified approval had not been expressed by the representatives of the FIA in the way in which it is admitted by FIA it was;'
Charlie and Sebastian Barnard (head of theFIA legal dept) said they could take the view that testing would be undertaken by Pirelli, not the competitor (ie Merc). If the FIA had continued to take that view Merc would have had no case to answer - although Pirelli may still have found themselves in dispute.

Did Merc get a go-ahead from the FIA? Of course they did.
Will another team get one? Of course not.

I've not (afaik) characterized this in terms of Merc 'obtaining permission.' They didn't need a 'permission', and indeed the FIA can't unilaterally give a permission to break the rules. What they were given was an interpretation - that CW and SB considered that a 2013 Merc could be run in a Pirelli test without it being considered to infringe the rule on track testing. I'd call that a 'go-ahead', yes.

You want to make it true by equalling the "belive they have permission" with "they have permission". It's not the same.
-"Do you know how fast you where driving there, sir?"
-"No more than 60, officer!"
-"Actually, it was 93"
-"Oh, I really believed it was 60, officer"
-"Really sir? Ok, go ahead then and have a nice day"

And yet strangely I've already said it isn't about whether Merc 'belive' (sic) they had a permission.
It's tagged on to that question you keep avoiding.

Merc 'had no reason to believe that approval had not been given.'*
How could they be in that position without some form of go-ahead?

*That isn't equivalent to 'Merc believed they had permission.'

Did someone give you a go-ahead to make stuff up?

Edited by trogggy, 25 June 2013 - 07:41.


#204 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 1,160 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 25 June 2013 - 10:03

Did Merc get a go-ahead from the FIA? Of course they did.

They did not get a go ahead. If they did, there would not have been any IT, no consequenses.

“Based on all the circumstances of the case and: (i) with the specific objective that, insofar as it is reasonably practicable to do so, the other teams should be placed in a similar position to that in which Mercedes is in as a result of the breach of article 22 SR and articles 1 and 151 ISC and Pirelli of articles 1 and 151 ISC ; (ii) in recognition of the fact that the testing would not have taken place but for the bona fide, but misconceived “qualified approval” which was given on behalf of the FIA.”

bo·na fide
adjective \ˈbō-nə-ˌfīd, ˈbä-; ˌbō-nə-ˈfī-dē, -ˈfī-də\
: made in good faith without fraud or deceit

mis·con·ceive (mskn-sv)
tr.v. mis·con·ceived, mis·con·ceiv·ing, mis·con·ceives
To interpret incorrectly; misunderstand.

#205 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 June 2013 - 10:03

Did someone give you a go-ahead to make stuff up?

I think it's quite clear that Mercedes (whatever they thought, for whatever reason) did not have permission.

That's evidenced by the fact that they were found guilty of the offence by the tribunal.


#206 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 June 2013 - 10:05

They did not get a go ahead. If they did, there would not have been any IT, no consequenses.

“Based on all the circumstances of the case and: (i) with the specific objective that, insofar as it is reasonably practicable to do so, the other teams should be placed in a similar position to that in which Mercedes is in as a result of the breach of article 22 SR and articles 1 and 151 ISC and Pirelli of articles 1 and 151 ISC ; (ii) in recognition of the fact that the testing would not have taken place but for the bona fide, but misconceived “qualified approval” which was given on behalf of the FIA.”

bo·na fide
adjective \ˈbō-nə-ˌfīd, ˈbä-; ˌbō-nə-ˈfī-dē, -ˈfī-də\
: made in good faith without fraud or deceit

mis·con·ceive (mskn-sv)
tr.v. mis·con·ceived, mis·con·ceiv·ing, mis·con·ceives
To interpret incorrectly; misunderstand.

To be fair, misconceived can also mean something like 'created in error', which makes it a particularly usefully ambiguous word to use there.

#207 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,672 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 25 June 2013 - 10:10

I think it's quite clear that Mercedes (whatever they thought, for whatever reason) did not have permission.

That's evidenced by the fact that they were found guilty of the offence by the tribunal.

What has any of that got to do with what you quoted?

#208 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 June 2013 - 10:12

What has any of that got to do with what you quoted?

You have repeatedly claimed they did have permission.

Which is 'making things up'.

Edited by oetzi, 25 June 2013 - 10:12.


#209 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,672 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 25 June 2013 - 10:16

They did not get a go ahead. If they did, there would not have been any IT, no consequenses.

“Based on all the circumstances of the case and: (i) with the specific objective that, insofar as it is reasonably practicable to do so, the other teams should be placed in a similar position to that in which Mercedes is in as a result of the breach of article 22 SR and articles 1 and 151 ISC and Pirelli of articles 1 and 151 ISC ; (ii) in recognition of the fact that the testing would not have taken place but for the bona fide, but misconceived “qualified approval” which was given on behalf of the FIA.”

bo·na fide
adjective \ˈbō-nə-ˌfīd, ˈbä-; ˌbō-nə-ˈfī-dē, -ˈfī-də\
: made in good faith without fraud or deceit

mis·con·ceive (mskn-sv)
tr.v. mis·con·ceived, mis·con·ceiv·ing, mis·con·ceives
To interpret incorrectly; misunderstand.

Yes. Misconceived. By the FIA. By Charlie Whiting and the head of the FIA legal dept.
That's why the penalty was so low. Because the FIA gave a misconceived go-ahead (qualified approval) in the eyes of the Independent Tribunal.
It's also why the FIA ended up paying their own costs - they cocked up.

And you've misunderstood the Tribunal report.

Are you completely ignoring the made-up 'You want to make it true by equalling the "belive they have permission" with "they have permission" ' now?
Along with your amusing policeman analogy?

#210 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,672 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 25 June 2013 - 10:17

You have repeatedly claimed they did have permission.

Which is 'making things up'.

I've not (afaik) characterized this in terms of Merc 'obtaining permission.' They didn't need a 'permission', and indeed the FIA can't unilaterally give a permission to break the rules. What they were given was an interpretation - that CW and SB considered that a 2013 Merc could be run in a Pirelli test without it being considered to infringe the rule on track testing. I'd call that a 'go-ahead', yes.

Righto.

#211 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 June 2013 - 10:22

I want somebody to ask RBR and Ferrari, what they prefer to do tyres test for Pirelli as Mercedes did or to participate in YDT? Where they can test everything they want, to test current tyres as much as they want. I doubt they will chose what Mercedes did. For me here Mercedes were played by Pirelli, FIA and other teams. If Mercedes thought that for the tyre test they will lose YDT, they will probably refuse Pirelli offer.

Edited by ivand911, 25 June 2013 - 10:25.


#212 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 June 2013 - 10:25

Righto.

So you're saying giving a 'go-ahead' and giving 'permission' are two different things?

And that a conditional 'go-ahead' can be considered a 'go-ahead' without the conditions being met?

Righto.

#213 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,672 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 25 June 2013 - 10:30

So you're saying giving a 'go-ahead' and giving 'permission' are two different things?

And that a conditional 'go-ahead' can be considered a 'go-ahead' without the conditions being met?

Righto.

I'll spend some time answering your post when you withdraw your 'making stuff up' claim.



#214 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 June 2013 - 10:33

I'll spend some time answering your post when you withdraw your 'making stuff up' claim.

I'll withdraw it when you can provide me with an answer that means what I said is wrong. I'll happily apologise, in fact. If you can.

But without answering you can't.

I'm off now, so you've got all day :)

#215 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 1,160 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 25 June 2013 - 10:33

I'll spend some time answering your post when you withdraw your 'making stuff up' claim.

I think your answer is essential to determine who, if anyone, is making things up.

#216 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,672 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 25 June 2013 - 10:38

I'll withdraw it when you can provide me with an answer that means what I said is wrong. I'll happily apologise, in fact. If you can.

But without answering you can't.

I'm off now, so you've got all day :)

You don't have too look far.

#217 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,672 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 25 June 2013 - 10:39

I think your answer is essential to determine who, if anyone, is making things up.

I see you've given up even trying to argue your misconceived point now.
No answer at all? :lol:

Edited by trogggy, 25 June 2013 - 10:42.


#218 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 June 2013 - 10:41

You don't have too look far.

That's not answering what I said. That's putting your fingers in your ears and repeating yourself.

You've got all day - surely you can do better than that.

Seeya :)

#219 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,672 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 25 June 2013 - 10:44

That's not answering what I said. That's putting your fingers in your ears and repeating yourself.

You've got all day - surely you can do better than that.

Seeya :)

You say 'you've claimed...'
I quote an earlier post which specifically says 'I'm not claiming...'

What?

Edit: '...' are paraphrases. I'm talking about post #210

Edited by trogggy, 25 June 2013 - 10:52.


Advertisement

#220 Shiroo

Shiroo
  • Member

  • 4,012 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 25 June 2013 - 11:00

Mercedes fans logic (not all but most) is flawless:

Mercedes:We shouldn't get penatly cause we wanted to help
M-Fans: YA! MERCEDES WANTED TO HELP

Other teams: We want to show how retarded FIA decission is and do the same test to help Pirelli and we can even sacrifice YDT
M-Fans: BAN THEM!


Jesus. So now Mercedes fans became judge, who can and who can't. Oh man

Edited by Shiroo, 25 June 2013 - 11:01.


#221 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,672 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 25 June 2013 - 11:06

A lot of fuss about a Simple Truth. Going back to beginning: The truth you posted, as a response to a challenge to another poster, was not true. There is no way around that but you sure are trying hard.

Are you going to accept that you misunderstood 'misconceived'?
Or call me some more names?
If your next post is just another 'I've won the argument' then I'm done with you.

Edit: I suppose I should just take the fact that you've ignored it and are avoiding the subject as tacit acceptance. It's probably as close as we'll get.

Edited by trogggy, 25 June 2013 - 11:11.


#222 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 1,160 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 25 June 2013 - 11:11

Are you going to accept that you misunderstood 'misconceived'?
Or call me some more names?
If your next post is just another 'I've won the argument' then I'm done with you.

Of course I won the argument. IT concluded that it was somewhat understandable that Merc believed the had permission. But they didn't have it.

#223 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,672 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 25 June 2013 - 11:12

Wow. My last edit certainly was on the money. :lol:


#224 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 1,160 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 25 June 2013 - 11:19

Wow. My last edit certainly was on the money. :lol:

That was your first fail, you never actually grasped the subject

#225 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,672 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 25 June 2013 - 11:27

That was your first fail, you never actually grasped the subject

And with that little gem I'm out. This is a waste of my brain-damaged time.
Bye.

#226 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,786 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 25 June 2013 - 11:36

Of course I won the argument. IT concluded that it was somewhat understandable that Merc believed the had permission. But they didn't have it.

but how can rb & ferrari act in a similar way and pretend they understood they have FIA permission for a test?

#227 SophieB

SophieB
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,578 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 25 June 2013 - 11:46

This thread has long since lost sight of the stated goal of the thread, discussing how Ferrari and Red Bull planned to respond to the IA tribunal's ruling. Instead, it has become too bogged down in discussing the ethics of the original test itself. There are other threads to discuss the tribunal and the verdict, please do so there.

In addition, this thread has too often fallen short of the standards of acceptable personal behaviour. This is a community in which most of you are regulars - please aim always to talk to each other with patience and respect.

If Red Bull or Ferrari announce what, if anything, they are going to do in response to the Merc/Pirelli test, a new thread can be started.