116 replies to this topic

[superdelphinus]

They're hard to substantiate either way, I'm surprised people are still trying to argue opinions really

[Lights]

It's not about how you win it. It's about winning it. See Red Bull.

[JaredS]

Mercedes' long run pace in FP2 was unimpressive to me. I'm not quite sure they've turned the corner with regards to race pace just yet.

If they don't prove to have the advantage here that they had in Silverstone over the likes of Ferrari and Lotus, I think will severely hurt any argument that the test proved to be Mercedes' miracle cure.

Exactly. There were so many premature comments after Silverstone where A was connected with B to draw conclusion C. Those completely forgot that in the second race of the season - Malaysia, a hot fast track, Merc finished 3rd and 4th just behind Red Bull.

It seems that they're not much closer to solving the tyre puzzle, and further, they MAY have been severely caught out with the change to kevlar belted tyres.

[redreni]

I didn't say it was illegal, just that in my opinion that one car tested in a track where the next gp would take place doesn't seem fair to me
And in Mercedes case it could be that they solved their issues with the tyres without the test but to me looks very suspicious that after their test they improved so much in their tyre management.

And if I remember correctly in Monaco Vettel was told to back off Rosberg because they told him Merc's tyres were in better shape than his after the pitstop.

Legal but unfair? That's a new one on me - anyone could have done the same thing. Either they didn't think it would be worth it, or they didn't think of it. Either way I'm struggling to see what's unfair about it - it's like saying one team brought a big upgrade to a race and another team didn't, so we should all sneer at the team that developed its car if they win the race.

In Monaco Vettel was told to back off Rosberg and settle for second. Maybe that was for the reason I mentioned - because they were in a good position and didn't want to jeopardise that with an attempted overtake, and since they were settling for second anyway they thought they might as well go as slow as possible because they knew, in the context of their testgate protest, Mercedes getting an apparently easy win from pole when they had gone from pole to ninth in the previous race, would only serve to increase pressure on the FIA to act. That's entirely consistent with Horner's aggressive strategy of stirring the issue up and bleating to the media about Mercedes' performance at every opportunity, which he engaged in throughout the Monaco weekend. It's would also explain the radio message about the lack of wear on Rosberg's tyres to which you refer.

On the other hand, maybe Red Bull had no ulterior motive and the radio message meant exactly what it said - we can't fight Mercedes because of their amazing tyre wear. Is that consistent with how Red Bull normally operate - if they think their tyres might wear out before their rivals they give up? Their own deg can't have been bad if they were putting in the fastest race lap by three seconds a lap from the end - that suggests there was more performance to be had from Vettel's tyres, so why didn't they push a bit harder and put pressure on Rosberg, or at least keep Rosberg honest by forcing him to go a bit faster? If they then ran into tyre troubles they could have backed off themselves - it's not like they were going to get overtaken. Rosberg's projected degradation levels can't possibly be the reason for their failure to fight for the win unless the team that has won both titles in each of the last three years is a bunch of quitters.

[redreni]

Yeah, they broke the rules and so any WDC and WCC will be referred to as tainted unless the majority F1 is convinced that the advantaged gained by Mercedes is equaled out among the top teams (at least their direct competitors).

The media might try to do them a favor and play it down - but to date, they are not doing so at all. In FP1 Merc's pace was remarked upon by Crofty and Ant and with a bit of embarrassed laughter, the test was mentioned. So it will take some work on their part to reverse the present thinking and they are not on it yet.

I think Merc has shown very little regard for fans and comrades of F1 in that they keep insisting that the test was not 'secret' and that they learned very little - when we have the black helmets and covert-like operations combined with improved performance post test. If that is the case, I'd like to hear Merc's definition of a "secret test" and see the results of their "learning a lot".

I expect their definition of a secret test would be one that you don't find out about and therefore can't complain about.

I'm interested in the notion that they broke the rules and therefore anything they may achieve will be tainted, even though the matter has been dealt with and a punishment handed down, then subsequently increased with Mercedes' agreement. If a driver breaches the sporting regulations and is given a drive-through by the stewards which he then serves, is his result tainted?

[halifaxf1fan]

Yeah I think so. TBH I'd see it as rather stupid to waste resources testing if you weren't going to learn something.

Yep, they used their test session well to solve their rear tire overheating problem and Lewis got the time with the brakes that he needed to work out his issues.

Edited by halifaxf1fan, 07 July 2013 - 01:22.

[RoryF1]

No

[Jimisgod]

I vote:

Hamilton WDC - tainted cheater's

Rosberg WDC - Well earned victory

Don't you mean:

Hamilton WDC - Senna #2, first season at a new team and is WDC. Proves he can beat Vettel and Newey at full strength.

Rosberg WDC - Button #2, lucky season, insert excuse as to why Hamilton was robbed. Car was clearly better because of test.

[bourbon]

I expect their definition of a secret test would be one that you don't find out about and therefore can't complain about.

And how would they define a test that was supposed to be one that others didn't find out about, but ultimately did find out about it? Because that is what journos, pundits and fans are referring to when they use the term "secret" test.

I'm interested in the notion that they broke the rules and therefore anything they may achieve will be tainted, even though the matter has been dealt with and a punishment handed down, then subsequently increased with Mercedes' agreement. If a driver breaches the sporting regulations and is given a drive-through by the stewards which he then serves, is his result tainted?

The punishment handed down was not fair. The increased sanction is still not comparable to the test Merc got and is also not fair; other teams will not be allowed to run both drivers for 1000km and they will not have 3 days, just the one. A close eye will be kept on the teams to ensure that they are not obtaining advantageous information - which was not the case for Merc. In addition, Merc has had some 6 races in which to put its advantage to use in races toward the championship. So people are still struggling to see it as an equitable resolution (including myself).

While I initially believed the upcoming test would be more fairly rendered, now that I see it will not, I am once again in the group that feels any WDC and WCC would carry the taint of unfair advantage. It is true they worked for the advantage, so it is not unfair in that sense. It is unfair because they were given an opportunity to do so that the other teams were not - and from what I can gather - will not be given.

Edited by bourbon, 07 July 2013 - 05:17.

[GS1]

No.

[JaredS]

I vote:

Hamilton WDC - tainted cheater's

Rosberg WDC - Well earned victory

Don't you mean:

Hamilton WDC - Senna #2, first season at a new team and is WDC. Proves he can beat Vettel and Newey at full strength.

Rosberg WDC - Button #2, lucky season, insert excuse as to why Hamilton was robbed. Car was clearly better because of test.

Between the two of you, you've highlighted perfectly the two extreme and equally ridiculous views. Well done.

[SpamJet]

No more so than 2012. Or 2011. Or 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, etc, etc, etc. Every year people claim a championship is tainted.

Not 2001, what was tainted about that?

[Seanspeed]

So......maybe that test didn't help so much after all....

[discover23]

Aren't the tires used today old spec? The ones that were giving Mercedes lots of problems? Coincidentally Lewis struggled with the tires today... Hmmmmm..

[Seanspeed]

Aren't the tires used today old spec? The ones that were giving Mercedes lots of problems? Coincidentally Lewis struggled with the tires today... Hmmmmm..

Old spec?

[redreni]

I have to say this thread is hardly awash with posts of contrition and retraction in the way one might have expected....

[Zippel]

Not 2001, what was tainted about that?

Ferrari used what was apparently 'legal' traction control for the first 4 races of the season.

http://www.atlasf1.c...hp/id/149/.html

Edited by Zippel, 08 July 2013 - 00:30.