Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 7 votes

Should Mercedes be allowed in Young Drivers Test


  • Please log in to reply
648 replies to this topic

Poll: Mercedes be allowed in Young Driver Test (399 member(s) have cast votes)

Should Mercedes be allowed in Young Driver Test

  1. Yes for 1 day (131 votes [32.91%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.91%

  2. No as we cant reward their actions that led to the "secret test" (267 votes [67.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 67.09%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#601 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,972 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 July 2013 - 16:25

Mercedes didn't exactly say that the FIA didn't know its own rules. The fact that they didn't only emerged as a result of the dispute - Mercedes didn't prosecute themselves. The FIA could have said "we're not going to prosecute because tyre testing under the direction of Pirelli is not track testing under Article 22.1" and then they could have requested Pirelli to offer suitable testing opportunities to all the other teams on a fair and equitable basis forthwith.

I tihink the FIA wanted an independent voice to adjudicate on the meaning of the rule as they didn't want to be dragged through endless appeals, not because their was any confusion. The tribunal agreed with their opinion, so there was no evidence of the FIA not knowing their rules as a result of the tribunal.

Whilst it may be fair enough to call my observations about the FIA a "rant" it doesn't detract from the baselessness of your accusation (you were the one who brought this up) that Mercedes undermined the structure of the sport for a short term competite advantage.

It didn't add anything either.

The Red Bull is indeed available at race meetings to be scrutinised by the scrutineers, but the other teams can't scrutinise the Red Bulls. Furthermore it doesn't constitute advanced notice of Red Bull's intention to run any questionable or flat-out illegal components. The FIA only finds out about these things, if the scrutineers spot them, during scrutineering (i.e. not in advance). The other teams only find out about the arguable or illegal components once Charlie has said to Newey "I say, old bean, would it be too much trouble to fix this little problem by the next race?" and then put up a notice about it in the paddock, if he even bothers to do that which he doesn't always.

Questionable technical things are normally run past Charlie in advance (that being an actual part of his job, whereas deciding when a test isn't a test is not). The other teams are free to look at cars, too. That's why they quite often see things on other cars and ask for clarifications.

The Mercedes test was more transparent than that, since the Mercedes transporters etc were there to be seen by the other teams, not leaving the circuit, not packing up, on Sunday evening and Monday after the Spanish Grand Prix, so every team principal in F1 must have known something was up at least two days before the test ever happened. There was certainly no question of the other teams remaining in the dark once the test had been carried out - it is simply not possible to test for three days at the Circuit de Catalunya without the other teams knowing.

As was proved - they gave it their best shot, though.

And I would caution against relying too much on the intention of the test ban as part of your argument, because I could just as easily bring up the intention of the rule that says a car's floor must be impervious, or the rule that you can't keep changing engine maps all the time, etc. No team can afford to be exclusively concerned about what the regulation was intended to mean, and they have to consider what the regulation actually says and to look for ways of interpreting that in the most advantageous way for themselves.

There's a difference between doing something in the belief that the rule says you can, and asking for permission to do something, being advised that you can't but that if certain conditions are fulfilled then it could possibly be acceptable, then deliberately not doing the things you were told might make it OK, then blaming the people who offered you friendly advice for saying it was OK.


Advertisement

#602 JaredS

JaredS
  • Member

  • 1,142 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 17 July 2013 - 16:54

Anyway time to move on. The International Tribunal have made its ruling. A ruling made by an independent respected QC after hearing all of the facts from all parties. http://www.fia.com/s.....sion (EN).pdf

http://www.fia.com/s.....sion (EN).pdf

FIA finding:
40 (2): Neither Pirelli nor Mercedes acted in bad faith at any material time.
40 (3): 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.

I for one agree with the full ruling and am fine with the resulting penalty. The topic is "Should Mercedes be allowed to participate in the YDT?" and IMO they should not but neither do they deserve to be demonised for what the Tribunal has ruled as a genuine misunderstanding by all parties. So many attempts to spin it otherwise fail miserably. The Tribunal, with all its information, has made that perfectly clear. I only hope that the FIA can learn from this and look inwards on how to be more competent.

#603 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,972 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 18 July 2013 - 21:39

So Mercedes are guilty but didn't act in bad faith, despite having been told what might make it OK, deciding not to do it, then saying it was everyone else's fault?

Yeah, the tribunal ruled.

That doesn't prevent anyone from having an opinion :).

#604 Mrluke

Mrluke
  • Member

  • 93 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 18 July 2013 - 22:19

So Mercedes are guilty but didn't act in bad faith, despite having been told what might make it OK, deciding not to do it, then saying it was everyone else's fault?

Yeah, the tribunal ruled.

That doesn't prevent anyone from having an opinion :).


Translation: The tribunal didnt agree with me so they must be wrong.

When all evidence shows that you are wrong its probably a good idea to at least consider the possibility..

#605 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,972 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 18 July 2013 - 23:17

The evidence showed Mercedes were guilty. So the tribunal did agree with me on the substantive things.

The bit about 'good faith' is just about what you decide to believe. The tribunal decided to believe they acted in good faith.

The fact they knew everyne else thought it was illegal, asked if it was legal, were told 'maybe, if you go about it like this', didn't go about it like that, dressed their drivers up as test drivers and then blamed everyone else for everything suggests to me that's not the case.

#606 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,659 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 19 July 2013 - 05:38

The evidence showed Mercedes were guilty. So the tribunal did agree with me on the substantive things.

The bit about 'good faith' is just about what you decide to believe. The tribunal decided to believe they acted in good faith.

The fact they knew everyne else thought it was illegal, asked if it was legal, were told 'maybe, if you go about it like this', didn't go about it like that, dressed their drivers up as test drivers and then blamed everyone else for everything suggests to me that's not the case.


LOL, no, the evidence showed Mercedes was in fact not guilty. The IT had no way of punishing Mercedes. They knew if they bring in a verdict that is not favorable for Merc, Mercedes will just appeal and overturn it in about one hour. If Merc does not throw a lifeline by saying ok, you may punish us, the whole system goes down the drain. Merc was smart.

#607 speednerd

speednerd
  • Member

  • 80 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 19 July 2013 - 05:44

Mercedes is the George Zimmerman of this situation.

#608 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,224 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 19 July 2013 - 05:45

thank deus this thread will be invalid tomorrow, the pointless bickering is really pointless, made even more so by FIA's decision to hand over tire data to MGP anyway. who said crime doesn't pay :cool:

#609 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,659 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 19 July 2013 - 05:53

thank deus this thread will be invalid tomorrow, the pointless bickering is really pointless, made even more so by FIA's decision to hand over tire data to MGP anyway. who said crime doesn't pay :cool:


It was fun while it lasted.


#610 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,391 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 19 July 2013 - 13:33

The evidence showed Mercedes were guilty. So the tribunal did agree with me on the substantive things.

The bit about 'good faith' is just about what you decide to believe. The tribunal decided to believe they acted in good faith.

The fact they knew everyne else thought it was illegal, asked if it was legal, were told 'maybe, if you go about it like this', didn't go about it like that, dressed their drivers up as test drivers and then blamed everyone else for everything suggests to me that's not the case.


The guilty verdict and the "good faith" finding have to be viewed together. It was a compromise - the latter was put in to make sure it wouldn't be worth Mercedes' while to appeal against the former. If the tribunal had found that Mercedes were guilty and that they acted in bad faith, Mercedes would have appealed, and they would have had ample basis to do so since the tribunal failed to consider the main point in their defence.

Notice, I do not criticise the tribunal for failing to agree with Mercedes' defence, I criticise them for failing to consider it. They made no clear finding on the proper interpretation of Article 22.1 and failed to give reasons for either accepting or not accepting Mercedes' argument that the test was an undertaking by Pirelli. They focussed only on the narrow issue of permission which wasn't really relevant to the legality or otherwise of the test, only to the level of punishment. Mercedes were entitled to have their arguments taken into account and considered in the light of the advice they had received from the FIA, but the tribunal preferred not to go into any detail whatsoever about that or to publish Whiting's emails or to do anything which might embarass the FIA. That's the price they paid, and in return for that price they got their "good faith" finding and their lenient treatment.

If that deal hadn't been done the whole thing would have had to be gone through properly and you might be even unhappier than you are already, since Mercedes might have been exonerated.

And for the last time, the question of compliance or non-complaince with a regulation cannot depend on a condition laid down by the governing body that has no logical connection to the regulation itself. Not fulfilling the condition = no permission, but Mercedes weren't claiming to have or to have needed permission. Not fulfilling the condition does not equal illegal, and Mercedes were claiming the test was not illegal.

#611 JaredS

JaredS
  • Member

  • 1,142 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 19 July 2013 - 14:27

So Mercedes are guilty but didn't act in bad faith, despite having been told what might make it OK, deciding not to do it, then saying it was everyone else's fault?

Yeah, the tribunal ruled.

That doesn't prevent anyone from having an opinion :).


First of all let me say that I fully stand by your right to have an opinion. I may not agree with it, but it goes without saying that you have a right to it. But it was not worth either your or my time in discussing if all you were ever going to do is respond to most posts by constantly repeating along the lines of "it was illegal" over and over again. So good to see we've moved on from that.

Let's dissect your post.

You said "<Mercedes> despite having been told what might make it OK <inform other teams of the test>, deciding(sic) not to do it"
My response: ref. official IT ruling in link I gave earlier. Point 5 on page 6:

5. Mr Whiting spoke as well to Paul Hembery, Pirelli Motorsport Director, in similar terms and Mr. Hembery confirmed that all the teams would be given a similar opportunity to test and that he would confirm that all of the teams had been informed once that had been done.

Hence, Pirelli actually confirmed to the FIA that they would give other teams a similar opportunity to test and would confirm that all teams had been informed. Mercedes is not responsible for holding Pirelli's hand nor policing to ensure Pirelli fulfilled its responsibility. The FIA already directly conveyed to Pirelli its responsibility. The track was booked, organised and paid for by Pirelli. It was Pirelli's test. Mercedes was just a team they had invited. It was Pirelli's responsibility to fulfil their obligations which they promised the FIA they would.

The IT affirms the above position in their b) Findings of the Tribunal item 40.(4)(ii) on page 17:

(ii) insofar as FIA expressed its qualified approval for the testing to be carried out, that approval could not, and did not, vary the express prohibition stipulated by Article 22 SR and neither Mercedes nor Pirelli took adequate steps to ensure that the qualification was satisfied. In this regard the Tribunal takes particular note of the fact that it was, very properly, not submitted on behalf of Pirelli, nor was there any evidence that, the assurance which it was not disputed Mr Paul Hembery, Pirelli Motorsport Director, had given to Charlie Whiting (as set out in paragraph 5 above) had in fact been acted on at any material time;

Whilst the Tribunal ruled that "neither Mercedes nor Pirelli took adequate steps to ensure that the qualification was satisfied" the Tribunal stopped short of making any comment that it expected Mercedes to have taken those steps, whilst expressly noting that Pirelli didn't meet its earlier promise.

Specifically the Tribunal found that the test shouldn't have gone ahead. They found that the test went ahead because of the "bona fide misconceived qualified approval" that the FIA gave but never should have given. In fact the Tribunal articulated this in two separate places - item 40.(4)(iii) on page 17and under item 42. on page 18:

(iii) the testing would, however, not have been carried out by either Mercedes or Pirelli 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;

(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,

So now that we've established the fact that the test wouldn't have gone ahead without the FIA's error, the next finding is that the Tribunal found that Pirelli failed to meet the conditions on which the FIA's approval was based on. That Pirelli failed to fulfil what it expressly confirmed to the FIA that it would fulfil. As for Mercedes - well they were effectively found guilty of going along for the ride and not asking enough questions; not doing more.

It should also be noted that not only was Mercedes guilty of seeking and acting on the advice of Charlie Whiting but so too were Ferrari. The Tribunal specifically notes that in that case too, Whiting should not have given advice. It is important to note that just like Mercedes did, so too did Ferrari ring Whiting and get verbal acceptance of carrying out a test based on Whiting's interpretation of their 2011 car not "substantially conforming to the current car" and then acting on that verbal acceptance, ref. b) Findings of the Tribunal item 40.(4)(iv):

(iv) The Tribunal is unable to express any opinion as to whether or not the testing carried out by Ferrari in 2012 and 2013 was properly authorised but, it would appear to be equally unsatisfactory that this consent was also given by Charlie Whiting, the Tribunal has no evidence before it which indicates that his opinion in that case had in fact been wrong.

So to summarise, let's look at what each of the three involved parties did wrong:

FIA - Gave a qualified approval when they shouldn't have done so in the first place.
Pirelli - Were told they had to fulfil their obligations to inform the other teams and invite them to test, and confirmed back to the FIA that they would do this.
Mercedes - Asked a question of Whiting that the latter was in no position to answer. Same as Ferrari who also asked a question of Whiting that the latter was in no position to answer. They then acted on Whiting's answer that should never have been in given in the first place. Same as Ferrari who also acted on Whiting's answer that should never have been given in the first place. Mercedes then failed to follow up on Pirelli's obligations that were conditional to the FIA's misconceived approval.

Let me repeat that - Mercedes' failure was to ask the FIA a question, and then having received a surprise positive conditional approval, they failed to follow up on Pirelli's obligations. Considering that Mercedes is a F1 competitor with obviously vested interests in the outcome of the competition they are participating in, their "failure" pales into comparison next to the failures of the FIA and Pirelli, both of which are supposed to be unbiased with no vested interests.

#612 halifaxf1fan

halifaxf1fan
  • Member

  • 4,846 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 19 July 2013 - 16:06

So to summarise, let's look at what each of the three involved parties did wrong:

FIA - Gave a qualified approval when they shouldn't have done so in the first place.
Pirelli - Were told they had to fulfil their obligations to inform the other teams and invite them to test, and confirmed back to the FIA that they would do this.
Mercedes - Asked a question of Whiting that the latter was in no position to answer. Same as Ferrari who also asked a question of Whiting that the latter was in no position to answer. They then acted on Whiting's answer that should never have been in given in the first place. Same as Ferrari who also acted on Whiting's answer that should never have been given in the first place. Mercedes then failed to follow up on Pirelli's obligations that were conditional to the FIA's misconceived approval.

Let me repeat that - Mercedes' failure was to ask the FIA a question, and then having received a surprise positive conditional approval, they failed to follow up on Pirelli's obligations. Considering that Mercedes is a F1 competitor with obviously vested interests in the outcome of the competition they are participating in, their "failure" pales into comparison next to the failures of the FIA and Pirelli, both of which are supposed to be unbiased with no vested interests.



Mercedes ran a 2013 car in a 3 day mid-season test which is prohibited by the rules.

Edited by halifaxf1fan, 19 July 2013 - 16:07.


#613 JaredS

JaredS
  • Member

  • 1,142 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 19 July 2013 - 16:14

Mercedes ran a 2013 car in a 3 day mid-season test which is prohibited by the rules.


Well noted, you're quite sharp.

#614 halifaxf1fan

halifaxf1fan
  • Member

  • 4,846 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 19 July 2013 - 20:19

Well noted, you're quite sharp.


Thank you.

I had noticed that you were straying away from what actually happened and thought I could help you with a quick reminder as your writings above although extensive didn't once mention Mercedes' disgraceful disrespect for the rules and for their competitors.

I hope that the innocent teams testing this week can enjoy similar performance gains that Mercedes achieved from their exclusive unmonitored test.

#615 swerved

swerved
  • Member

  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 19 July 2013 - 21:27

Just watched the F1 show and Ted Kravitz gave a very wry smile when commenting on the rumour around the paddock that Mercedes had been on to the FIA to make sure that no team in the young drivers test gained an unfair advantage.

Shower of hypocrits.

#616 Rybo

Rybo
  • Member

  • 346 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 19 July 2013 - 21:47

Thank you.

I had noticed that you were straying away from what actually happened and thought I could help you with a quick reminder as your writings above although extensive didn't once mention Mercedes' disgraceful disrespect for the rules and for their competitors.

I hope that the innocent teams testing this week can enjoy similar performance gains that Mercedes achieved from their exclusive unmonitored test.


Except that your doing the exact same thing. You can't say Mercedes acted egregiously without putting all of the information into perspective. Of course they have a vested interest in being successful, but from what was told it was a three way wrong doing. Plus its obvious that Mercedes has not had any significant reduction in overheating their tires since the test.

Edited by Rybo, 19 July 2013 - 21:47.


#617 EvanRainer

EvanRainer
  • Member

  • 1,364 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 19 July 2013 - 22:55

You can tell the whole thing was effectively swept under the carpet by the fact that effectively, no one was assigned any blame.

It was all a "misunderstanding" you see :lol:

#618 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,972 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 19 July 2013 - 23:08

The guilty verdict and the "good faith" finding have to be viewed together.

They don't, you know

It was a compromise

Posted Image

#619 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,972 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 19 July 2013 - 23:13

First of all let me say that I fully stand by your right to have an opinion. I may not agree with it, but it goes without saying that you have a right to it. But it was not worth either your or my time in discussing if all you were ever going to do is respond to most posts by constantly repeating along the lines of "it was illegal" over and over again. So good to see we've moved on from that.

Let's dissect your post.

You said "<Mercedes> despite having been told what might make it OK <inform other teams of the test>, deciding(sic) not to do it"
My response: ref. official IT ruling in link I gave earlier. Point 5 on page 6:

5. Mr Whiting spoke as well to Paul Hembery, Pirelli Motorsport Director, in similar terms and Mr. Hembery confirmed that all the teams would be given a similar opportunity to test and that he would confirm that all of the teams had been informed once that had been done.

Hence, Pirelli actually confirmed to the FIA that they would give other teams a similar opportunity to test and would confirm that all teams had been informed. Mercedes is not responsible for holding Pirelli's hand nor policing to ensure Pirelli fulfilled its responsibility. The FIA already directly conveyed to Pirelli its responsibility. The track was booked, organised and paid for by Pirelli. It was Pirelli's test. Mercedes was just a team they had invited. It was Pirelli's responsibility to fulfil their obligations which they promised the FIA they would.

The IT affirms the above position in their b) Findings of the Tribunal item 40.(4)(ii) on page 17:

(ii) insofar as FIA expressed its qualified approval for the testing to be carried out, that approval could not, and did not, vary the express prohibition stipulated by Article 22 SR and neither Mercedes nor Pirelli took adequate steps to ensure that the qualification was satisfied. In this regard the Tribunal takes particular note of the fact that it was, very properly, not submitted on behalf of Pirelli, nor was there any evidence that, the assurance which it was not disputed Mr Paul Hembery, Pirelli Motorsport Director, had given to Charlie Whiting (as set out in paragraph 5 above) had in fact been acted on at any material time;

Whilst the Tribunal ruled that "neither Mercedes nor Pirelli took adequate steps to ensure that the qualification was satisfied" the Tribunal stopped short of making any comment that it expected Mercedes to have taken those steps, whilst expressly noting that Pirelli didn't meet its earlier promise.

Specifically the Tribunal found that the test shouldn't have gone ahead. They found that the test went ahead because of the "bona fide misconceived qualified approval" that the FIA gave but never should have given. In fact the Tribunal articulated this in two separate places - item 40.(4)(iii) on page 17and under item 42. on page 18:

(iii) the testing would, however, not have been carried out by either Mercedes or Pirelli 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;

(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,

So now that we've established the fact that the test wouldn't have gone ahead without the FIA's error, the next finding is that the Tribunal found that Pirelli failed to meet the conditions on which the FIA's approval was based on. That Pirelli failed to fulfil what it expressly confirmed to the FIA that it would fulfil. As for Mercedes - well they were effectively found guilty of going along for the ride and not asking enough questions; not doing more.

It should also be noted that not only was Mercedes guilty of seeking and acting on the advice of Charlie Whiting but so too were Ferrari. The Tribunal specifically notes that in that case too, Whiting should not have given advice. It is important to note that just like Mercedes did, so too did Ferrari ring Whiting and get verbal acceptance of carrying out a test based on Whiting's interpretation of their 2011 car not "substantially conforming to the current car" and then acting on that verbal acceptance, ref. b) Findings of the Tribunal item 40.(4)(iv):

(iv) The Tribunal is unable to express any opinion as to whether or not the testing carried out by Ferrari in 2012 and 2013 was properly authorised but, it would appear to be equally unsatisfactory that this consent was also given by Charlie Whiting, the Tribunal has no evidence before it which indicates that his opinion in that case had in fact been wrong.

So to summarise, let's look at what each of the three involved parties did wrong:

FIA - Gave a qualified approval when they shouldn't have done so in the first place.
Pirelli - Were told they had to fulfil their obligations to inform the other teams and invite them to test, and confirmed back to the FIA that they would do this.
Mercedes - Asked a question of Whiting that the latter was in no position to answer. Same as Ferrari who also asked a question of Whiting that the latter was in no position to answer. They then acted on Whiting's answer that should never have been in given in the first place. Same as Ferrari who also acted on Whiting's answer that should never have been given in the first place. Mercedes then failed to follow up on Pirelli's obligations that were conditional to the FIA's misconceived approval.

Let me repeat that - Mercedes' failure was to ask the FIA a question, and then having received a surprise positive conditional approval, they failed to follow up on Pirelli's obligations. Considering that Mercedes is a F1 competitor with obviously vested interests in the outcome of the competition they are participating in, their "failure" pales into comparison next to the failures of the FIA and Pirelli, both of which are supposed to be unbiased with no vested interests.

It would have been much quicker just to write 'I like Mercedes' :)

Pirelli and (whisper it) Mercedes deliberately did wrong. A member of FIA staff (as a kindness) fluffed up a bit.

That's the size of it.

Advertisement

#620 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,972 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 19 July 2013 - 23:14

LOL, no, the evidence showed Mercedes was in fact not guilty

Which, of course, is why they were found guilty.


#621 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,972 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 19 July 2013 - 23:21

And for the last time, the question of compliance or non-complaince with a regulation cannot depend on a condition laid down by the governing body that has no logical connection to the regulation itself. Not fulfilling the condition = no permission, but Mercedes weren't claiming to have or to have needed permission. Not fulfilling the condition does not equal illegal, and Mercedes were claiming the test was not illegal.

The FIA suggested that might make it OK because then all the teams would have said it was OK, at which point convention overrides the rules - everyone signed up says it's fine, so it's fine.

It doesn't change the rules, it renders them irrelevant. If Marussia asked 'can we run a hovercraft full of eels?' they could apply the same condition in exactly the same way - the rules say no, but if nobody minds, then it's OK.

So you're arguing an irrelevance - nobody suggested it would change the rules, just that it would make it OK because the rules wouldn't apply if permission was given.

#622 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,972 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 19 July 2013 - 23:24

And that's ignoring the fact that if Mercedes knew the conditions couldn't change the rules, they were deliberately breaking the rules by arguing it made it OK because the rules weren't the rules even though they were (and are).

#623 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,239 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 19 July 2013 - 23:43

Isn't it time to put this thread out of it's misery? If for no other reason than it's now redundant.

#624 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,972 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 20 July 2013 - 00:01

Yeah, but...

#625 JaredS

JaredS
  • Member

  • 1,142 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 20 July 2013 - 06:59

Just watched the F1 show and Ted Kravitz gave a very wry smile when commenting on the rumour around the paddock that Mercedes had been on to the FIA to make sure that no team in the young drivers test gained an unfair advantage.

Shower of hypocrits.


Only if you have already made up your mind that they sought out to, and gained, an unfair advantage. If on the other hand, the test truly was - as all parties claimed and data/evidence produced indicated - Pirelli undertaking a Pirelli test where Mercedes were not running updates, did not know what tyres were being run etc etc such that it was for the purpose of Pirelli using a 2013 car to test the effect the car had on its various tyres, then yes I surely can understand Mercedes wanting to make sure that no other team stepped outside of those boundaries.

#626 JaredS

JaredS
  • Member

  • 1,142 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 20 July 2013 - 07:26

It would have been much quicker just to write 'I like Mercedes' :)

Pirelli and (whisper it) Mercedes deliberately did wrong. A member of FIA staff (as a kindness) fluffed up a bit.

That's the size of it.


And it surely would be quicker for you to just write "I hate Mercedes" or "I like <insert one of Mercedes' competitors>". This is the problem so far with most, but not all, of your posting - you are clearly incapable of addressing point by point. You haven't made one rebuttal on any of my responses that directly addressed your previous points. Your post above missed the target completely and is nothing but a gross oversimplification where you are going back to repeating yourself. I've seen you do better a few posts back so it's really up to you if you want to stretch yourself.

It's funny that you chastise a competitor in one of the most highly competitive sports in the world for possibly seeking to obtain a competitive advantage, but without trying to hide anything from the FIA and in fact seeking their counsel, yet your view of the regulatory body not doing its primary job properly is nothing but "fluffed up a bit (as a kindness)".

It surely prove you are biased against Mercedes. Contrast this with my view - where you claim that "I like Mercedes" - yet my view has always clearly been that Mercedes should not run in the YDT (or whatever it's morphed into now). Also, I've stated that Red Bull cheated in Canada 2012 - blatantly cheated - but I have no problems with Red Bull doing that (you would expect competitors to try whatever they can) but rather my problem is wholly that the FIA did not penalise it. Not one single person, even the Red Bull fans, has even dared to counter that Red Bull didn't break the rules in Canada 2012 by having the possibility to adjust the suspension by hand when the rules specifically forbid the possibility to have it adjustable by hand. So it's clear all can see that and similarly can see that the FIA did not punish them.

Do I think Mercedes should have gotten away with no penalty just because Red Bull did? Of course not. My points are simply that:

- FIA should have punished Red Bull. Where is the consistency by the regulator? How can we take the regulator seriously when they're allowing some teams to get away with clear and blatant breach of the rules, whilst giving false advise on their own regulations to other teams etc. This is the crux of it - the FIA incompetency is so blatant that people on this forum are actually casting blame on Mercedes because, consciously or otherwise, they are actually expecting the teams to self-regulate themselves. What a hilarious concept.

- Following on from above, Mercedes' culpability is the least of the 3 guilty parties involved. It is Mercedes' job to push the boundaries, seek interpretations at a stretch - that is what won Brawn the championship in 2009 with a unique interpretation to obtain the double diffuser that others assumed was illegal, just as it was that very thing that won Red Bull and Newey a couple of championships with the exhaust blown diffuser. Or McLaren with their F-duct, or Ferrari with their flexible floor in 2007. This is what teams do, what they are expected to do. If they seek FIA counsel of their interpretation, what more can one ask or expect of the teams? It is the FIA's responsibility to carry out their role as regulator properly. That their representatives are well versed in the regulations and also where their responsibilities lay. It's easy enough to say Charlie Whiting made a mistake, but hang on - you're conveniently forgetting that Whiting sought the counsel of the FIA LEGAL DIRECTOR Bernard. Why didn't the legal eagle realise they're not in a position to give interpretation to this? It's easy enough to blame Mercedes for asking the wrong people, but only if one conveniently forgets that even those wrong people in the FIA didn't realise they were the wrong people. If the FIA themselves don't know who is responsible for what, how the hell can people outside of the FIA be chastised for not knowing? What excuse does the FIA Legal Director have for not knowing that he can't give such interpretation, and advising that they need to go to the WMSC?

This, my friend, is the crux of the issue and why the Tribunal realised the hypocrisy of the whole thing even making it as far as it did. If the FIA don't know what they're doing and what the correct process is, how can the teams be reasonably expected to?

#627 JaredS

JaredS
  • Member

  • 1,142 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 20 July 2013 - 07:30

The FIA suggested that might make it OK because then all the teams would have said it was OK, at which point convention overrides the rules - everyone signed up says it's fine, so it's fine.

It doesn't change the rules, it renders them irrelevant. If Marussia asked 'can we run a hovercraft full of eels?' they could apply the same condition in exactly the same way - the rules say no, but if nobody minds, then it's OK.

So you're arguing an irrelevance - nobody suggested it would change the rules, just that it would make it OK because the rules wouldn't apply if permission was given.


You're just plain wrong.

The rules override any united view the teams may have. Only the FIA (and now as it turns out, specifically the WMSC) can override the rules.

For example - if all teams have the united view of running 3 cars and suddenly turn up to the next race with the 3rd car, the rules limiting running of only 2 cars doesn't suddenly become irrelevant.

So if Marussia wants to run a hovercraft full of eels and all teams agree, it's still not OK. All teams agreeing with Marussia's request doesn't render the rules irrelevant. It really is a most ridiculous thing to say otherwise. :cool:

#628 JaredS

JaredS
  • Member

  • 1,142 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 20 July 2013 - 07:51

On a separate note, did anyone else notice this story previously - first I've heard of it. http://www.f1times.c...e/display/07734

MERCEDES REFUSED OUT-OF-COURT DEAL

Mercedes team principal Ross Brawn and executive director Toto Wolff refused an out-of-court deal masterminded by the team's non-executive chairman Niki Lauda.
The triple world champion says he agreed a deal with Bernie Ecclestone which would have seen Mercedes avoid having to go to the International Tribunal, but his colleagues refused the offer.
"Red Bull lodged the protest against us with Ferrari. I tried the whole weekend in Montreal to avoid the [tribunal] process," Lauda explained to Blick.
"[I] agreed an out-of-court deal with Bernie Ecclestone and to make it happen it needed a letter from Mercedes to FIA boss [Jean] Todt," he said. "But our bosses Toto Wolff and Ross Brawn refused. Now they have to live with it."
The Austrian refused to comment on the details of the deal, but it's believed it centered around a large fine, rather than any championship exclusions.
Lauda wasn't present at the tribunal on Thursday. Mercedes was represented by Brawn, chief race engineer Andrew Shovlin and team manager Ron Meadows.

Very interesting indeed and raises a few points:

- Brawn refused a deal that involved money (no big deal for Mercedes). This indicates that they were confident of their position that they did not intentionally do any wrong and had some important points to put forward in the Tribunal. It's a big risk to go ahead with the Tribunal but Mercedes was clearly confident that they did not act in bad faith, as the Tribunal findings eventually proved.

- How on earth is it that the FIA is not independent of Bernie/CVC? How can it be that Bernie can play a key role of whether a competitor faces the legal proceedings within the FIA or gets away by simply paying a fine i.e money to Bernie? On top of everything else, this shows just how incompetent the FIA really is - supposed to be the regulator, but they play to Bernie's tune.

Edited by JaredS, 20 July 2013 - 08:03.


#629 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,972 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 21 July 2013 - 09:02

You're just plain wrong.

The rules override any united view the teams may have. Only the FIA (and now as it turns out, specifically the WMSC) can override the rules.

For example - if all teams have the united view of running 3 cars and suddenly turn up to the next race with the 3rd car, the rules limiting running of only 2 cars doesn't suddenly become irrelevant.

So if Marussia wants to run a hovercraft full of eels and all teams agree, it's still not OK. All teams agreeing with Marussia's request doesn't render the rules irrelevant. It really is a most ridiculous thing to say otherwise. :cool:

If the FIA and all the teams agree, it is cool.

Who is going to stop them? The Commonwealth of Swivel-Eyed Fans?

ps the Lauda/deal thing - you really aren't paying any attention, are you? Except to me, which I suppose I should find flattering :kiss:

#630 JaredS

JaredS
  • Member

  • 1,142 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 21 July 2013 - 10:01

If the FIA and all the teams agree, it is cool.

Who is going to stop them? The Commonwealth of Swivel-Eyed Fans?

ps the Lauda/deal thing - you really aren't paying any attention, are you? Except to me, which I suppose I should find flattering :kiss:


That's not what you said earlier but good to see that you've changed your position to agree with my previous post i.e:

The rules override any united view the teams may have. Only the FIA (and now as it turns out, specifically the WMSC) can override the rules.


re. Lauda/Bernie deal story, sorry I'm not keeping on top of every news piece as it breaks. However I can assure you that it's not personal that I'm "paying attention" to you in this thread. It's only logical that in a thread where only a few people with opposing views have recently been very vocal, they're going to respond to each other. But as it seems that you're becoming overly sensitive and taking it to a personal level, I promise this is my last post in this thread. It's been done to death anyway. Have fun.

#631 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,972 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 21 July 2013 - 10:13

That's not what you said earlier but good to see that you've changed your position to agree with my previous post i.e:

So you finally agreeing with me. I've been saying this for weeks. Congratulations :)



re. Lauda/Bernie deal story, sorry I'm not keeping on top of every news piece as it breaks.


That's not exactly breaking news. A month or two old.

However I can assure you that it's not personal that I'm "paying attention" to you in this thread. It's only logical that in a thread where only a few people with opposing views have recently been very vocal, they're going to respond to each other. But as it seems that you're becoming overly sensitive and taking it to a personal level, I promise this is my last post in this thread. It's been done to death anyway. Have fun.

Who's being sensitive?

Seeya :)



#632 mlsnoopy

mlsnoopy
  • Member

  • 2,356 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 21 July 2013 - 10:17

What if Mercedes suffers a tyre failure in Hungary?


#633 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,972 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 21 July 2013 - 10:18

What if they do? They happen.

#634 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,391 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 21 July 2013 - 14:05

The FIA suggested that might make it OK because then all the teams would have said it was OK, at which point convention overrides the rules - everyone signed up says it's fine, so it's fine.

It doesn't change the rules, it renders them irrelevant. If Marussia asked 'can we run a hovercraft full of eels?' they could apply the same condition in exactly the same way - the rules say no, but if nobody minds, then it's OK.

So you're arguing an irrelevance - nobody suggested it would change the rules, just that it would make it OK because the rules wouldn't apply if permission was given.


Nice argument, but that's not what the FIA were saying. They were asked by Ron Meadows if running the 2013 car in the test would be "permitted".

"Charlie Whiting’s own recollection is that he indicated to Ron Meadows and Ross Brawn that such a test would comply with Article 22 of the 2013 Formula One Sporting Regulations (the “SR”) provided that it was clear that its purpose was for Pirelli to test its tyres..."

That's not saying "it's illegal but if everyone agrees then it won't matter". Not even close, sorry.

Whiting then emailed Bernard and "recorded his view" that “it would (or could be argued) that “the test” was being done by Pirelli”

Whiting did not think the proposed test was illegal. Bernard's view is more interesting:

“we could take this position that it is Pirelli’s initiative to carry out such testing sessions, and not an undertaking from the competitors. However I think this is always subject to Pirelli complying strictly with its obligation to treat equally all competitors as per clause 4.2 of the supply agreement. This means that Pirelli shall invite all competitors to participate in such tests, and be able at any time to demonstrate that it has done so.”

He is putting a condition on the FIA adopting a particular position regarding the meaning of the regulation - that's as clear as day. That's why the FIA failed to produce these emails as part of its original submissions to the tribunal, and it took a Direction from the President of the Tribunal to make them disclose the emails - the FIA knew these emails were deeply unhelpful to their case.

Moreover the condition plainly does not refer simply to the specific test Mercedes were asking about - you can tell that from Bernard's use of the term "competitors" - he is plainly thinking in terms of the fact that if the FIA were to interpret Article 22.1 in the way Whiting was suggesting, other teams would also want to test and so it was important to ensure that Pirelli followed the terms of its contract and gave all teams the same opportunity to test. The implication being that if Pirelli could not be relied upon to do that, then the FIA should not take the interpretation of Article 22.1 that Whiting was suggesting. But Whiting obviously did feel that Pirelli could be relied upon to follow its contract and give an equal opportunity to all teams because:

"Mr Whiting spoke as well to Paul Hembery, Pirelli Motorsport Director, in similar terms and Mr. Hembery confirmed that all the teams would be given a similar opportunity to test and that he would confirm that all of the teams had been informed once that had been done."

It is reasonable to infer from those actions on the part of Whiting that he intended to go ahead with his plan to interpret Article 22.1 as allowing this kind of test. Otherwise he would not have needed to have that conversation with Hembury, would he? Mercedes claim that they subsequently had the final go-ahead from Charlie and the tribunal agreed that "Mercedes had no reason to believe that approval had not been given." We can't assess whether that's a fair or not because we don't know what Whiting said to Mercedes after he had had his email exchange with Bernard and spoken to Hembury.

So we know what Bernard said to Whiting, and we know it was radically contradictory to what the FIA argued before the tribunal - at the tribunal they argued simply that that "The wording of Article 22 SR is clear and unambiguous" (which is demonstrably false). But it is crystal clear that the context in which Bernard laid down the condition was a discussion about legality, not a discussion over whether something that is illegal could possibly happen anyway by universal consent.


#635 Seano

Seano
  • Member

  • 257 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 21 July 2013 - 15:50

In changing the rules to allow the WDC to morph into quasi testing, I think their has only been one clear winner.

I think some of the more partisan Ferrari fans, Ferrari Management and Jean Todt will come to rue this period of self-righteous complacency as SV shoots off to an easy 4th Championship.

Seano

#636 JimiKart

JimiKart
  • Member

  • 356 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 21 July 2013 - 18:11

Only if you have already made up your mind that they sought out to, and gained, an unfair advantage. If on the other hand, the test truly was - as all parties claimed and data/evidence produced indicated - Pirelli undertaking a Pirelli test where Mercedes were not running updates, did not know what tyres were being run etc etc such that it was for the purpose of Pirelli using a 2013 car to test the effect the car had on its various tyres, then yes I surely can understand Mercedes wanting to make sure that no other team stepped outside of those boundaries.


Yes we've made up our minds... what do you think Ross was up to going out to test with an current car and drivers - He was up to what he's always been up to and even though it's crystal clear to most I'll spoon-feed it to you - He figured that there was a loop hole which would allow him an unrestricted test with current cars and drivers, and that he would take advantage of that loop hole before anyone else did and before it got shut down - most importantly he had every expectation that somewhere, somehow he would gain an unfair advantage and be allowed to keep it, otherwise there was no reason to test...

#637 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,391 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 21 July 2013 - 19:37

Yes we've made up our minds... what do you think Ross was up to going out to test with an current car and drivers - He was up to what he's always been up to and even though it's crystal clear to most I'll spoon-feed it to you - He figured that there was a loop hole which would allow him an unrestricted test with current cars and drivers, and that he would take advantage of that loop hole before anyone else did and before it got shut down - most importantly he had every expectation that somewhere, somehow he would gain an unfair advantage and be allowed to keep it, otherwise there was no reason to test...


Hurrah! After 210 posts, you've finally said something sensible. Well done. That's a spot on assessment.

#638 JimiKart

JimiKart
  • Member

  • 356 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 22 July 2013 - 13:02

Hurrah! After 210 posts, you've finally said something sensible. Well done. That's a spot on assessment.


Ahhhh... that's so nice, thank you

#639 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,972 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 22 July 2013 - 23:38

Nice argument, but that's not what the FIA were saying. They were asked by Ron Meadows if running the 2013 car in the test would be "permitted".

"Charlie Whiting’s own recollection is that he indicated to Ron Meadows and Ross Brawn that such a test would comply with Article 22 of the 2013 Formula One Sporting Regulations (the “SR”) provided that it was clear that its purpose was for Pirelli to test its tyres..."

That's not saying "it's illegal but if everyone agrees then it won't matter". Not even close, sorry.

Whiting then emailed Bernard and "recorded his view" that “it would (or could be argued) that “the test” was being done by Pirelli”

Whiting did not think the proposed test was illegal. Bernard's view is more interesting:

“we could take this position that it is Pirelli’s initiative to carry out such testing sessions, and not an undertaking from the competitors. However I think this is always subject to Pirelli complying strictly with its obligation to treat equally all competitors as per clause 4.2 of the supply agreement. This means that Pirelli shall invite all competitors to participate in such tests, and be able at any time to demonstrate that it has done so.”

He is putting a condition on the FIA adopting a particular position regarding the meaning of the regulation - that's as clear as day. That's why the FIA failed to produce these emails as part of its original submissions to the tribunal, and it took a Direction from the President of the Tribunal to make them disclose the emails - the FIA knew these emails were deeply unhelpful to their case.

Moreover the condition plainly does not refer simply to the specific test Mercedes were asking about - you can tell that from Bernard's use of the term "competitors" - he is plainly thinking in terms of the fact that if the FIA were to interpret Article 22.1 in the way Whiting was suggesting, other teams would also want to test and so it was important to ensure that Pirelli followed the terms of its contract and gave all teams the same opportunity to test. The implication being that if Pirelli could not be relied upon to do that, then the FIA should not take the interpretation of Article 22.1 that Whiting was suggesting. But Whiting obviously did feel that Pirelli could be relied upon to follow its contract and give an equal opportunity to all teams because:

"Mr Whiting spoke as well to Paul Hembery, Pirelli Motorsport Director, in similar terms and Mr. Hembery confirmed that all the teams would be given a similar opportunity to test and that he would confirm that all of the teams had been informed once that had been done."

It is reasonable to infer from those actions on the part of Whiting that he intended to go ahead with his plan to interpret Article 22.1 as allowing this kind of test. Otherwise he would not have needed to have that conversation with Hembury, would he? Mercedes claim that they subsequently had the final go-ahead from Charlie and the tribunal agreed that "Mercedes had no reason to believe that approval had not been given." We can't assess whether that's a fair or not because we don't know what Whiting said to Mercedes after he had had his email exchange with Bernard and spoken to Hembury.

So we know what Bernard said to Whiting, and we know it was radically contradictory to what the FIA argued before the tribunal - at the tribunal they argued simply that that "The wording of Article 22 SR is clear and unambiguous" (which is demonstrably false). But it is crystal clear that the context in which Bernard laid down the condition was a discussion about legality, not a discussion over whether something that is illegal could possibly happen anyway by universal consent.

So what you're saying is that you can asses the unrecorded things that Charlie said that agree with your interpretation, but not the ones that don't, and that despite the fact it's not his job to interpret the rule, as Mercedes are well aware, he would be the one interpreting it against the advice of the lawyer, and that that explains everything?

Advertisement

#640 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,972 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 22 July 2013 - 23:39

Hurrah! After 210 posts, you've finally said something sensible. Well done. That's a spot on assessment.

Nice to see you realise that.

Now, that issue of 'good faith'...

#641 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,391 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 23 July 2013 - 11:52

So what you're saying is that you can asses the unrecorded things that Charlie said that agree with your interpretation, but not the ones that don't, and that despite the fact it's not his job to interpret the rule, as Mercedes are well aware, he would be the one interpreting it against the advice of the lawyer, and that that explains everything?


Since there was no dispute about the unrecorded things Charlie said which were included in the tribunal's judgement, yes, I can assess them whether they suit my interpretation or not. They're not in dispute. You're just avoiding confronting the issue which is the relevance or otherwise to the legality of Mercedes' actions of Bernard's condition that "Pirelli shall invite all competitors to participate in such tests, and be able at any time to demonstrate that it has done so".

I argued that, although Bernard's approval of Whiting's proposed interpretation of Article 22.1 (which if accepted would put Mercedes in the clear) was expressed as being conditional on Pirelli inviting all teams, no sane tribunal would think that the legality of the test could possibly depend on that condition since the condition is not in the regulations and cannot logically have any bearing on the way the relevant regulation is interpreted. You countered that the FIA actually always thought the proposed test would be illegal regardless of the condition, but thought that the test could go ahead anyway, despite its illegality, if the condition was met. I produced direct quotes from Whiting and Bernard's emails as disclosed to the tribunal that proved otherwise, and you now seek to muddy the waters by saying that what Whiting says is irrelevant and that he went against the lawyer's advice, which it isn't and he didn't.

If it's not Charlie's job to advise on the interpretation of the sporting regulations, who's job is it, then? Where are the teams supposed to go if they have a question about the meaning of a sporting regulation? Todt? Bernie? The Pope? Whiting is Clerk of the Course for all Grands Prix, so to suggest he's not required to be an expert on the sporting regulations is disingenuous at best.



#642 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,738 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 23 July 2013 - 12:24

Charlie should just answer"It's not my call" if he isn't the person deciding. Otherwise he should assume responsibility for his words/advice.

#643 swerved

swerved
  • Member

  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 23 July 2013 - 12:38

Since there was no dispute about the unrecorded things Charlie said which were included in the tribunal's judgement, yes, I can assess them whether they suit my interpretation or not. They're not in dispute. You're just avoiding confronting the issue which is the relevance or otherwise to the legality of Mercedes' actions of Bernard's condition that "Pirelli shall invite all competitors to participate in such tests, and be able at any time to demonstrate that it has done so".

I argued that, although Bernard's approval of Whiting's proposed interpretation of Article 22.1 (which if accepted would put Mercedes in the clear) was expressed as being conditional on Pirelli inviting all teams, no sane tribunal would think that the legality of the test could possibly depend on that condition since the condition is not in the regulations and cannot logically have any bearing on the way the relevant regulation is interpreted. You countered that the FIA actually always thought the proposed test would be illegal regardless of the condition, but thought that the test could go ahead anyway, despite its illegality, if the condition was met. I produced direct quotes from Whiting and Bernard's emails as disclosed to the tribunal that proved otherwise, and you now seek to muddy the waters by saying that what Whiting says is irrelevant and that he went against the lawyer's advice, which it isn't and he didn't.

If it's not Charlie's job to advise on the interpretation of the sporting regulations, who's job is it, then? Where are the teams supposed to go if they have a question about the meaning of a sporting regulation? Todt? Bernie? The Pope? Whiting is Clerk of the Course for all Grands Prix, so to suggest he's not required to be an expert on the sporting regulations is disingenuous at best.



He isn't.


#644 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,391 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 23 July 2013 - 13:50

He isn't.


Yes he is.

A linesman is still a linesman no matter what you call him. A Clerk of the Course is still a Clerk of the Course no matter what you call him. Whiting is still an incompetent buffoon no matter what you call him.

#645 swerved

swerved
  • Member

  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 23 July 2013 - 16:23

Yes he is.





No, he isn't.

12.1 From among holders of an FIA Super Licence the following officials will be nominated by the FIA :
a) Three stewards one of whom will be appointed chairman.
b) A race director.
c) A permanent starter.
12.2 From among holders of an FIA Super Licence the following officials will be nominated by the ASN and their names sent to the FIA at the same time as the application to organise the Event:
a) One steward from among the ASNs nationals.
b) The clerk of the course.


They're two separate positions, nominated by separate bodies.

Tim Schenken is neither Race Director nor is he Charlie Whiting, but he is Clerk of the Course for the Australian GP.



#646 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,391 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 23 July 2013 - 19:17

No, he isn't.

12.1 From among holders of an FIA Super Licence the following officials will be nominated by the FIA :
a) Three stewards one of whom will be appointed chairman.
b) A race director.
c) A permanent starter.
12.2 From among holders of an FIA Super Licence the following officials will be nominated by the ASN and their names sent to the FIA at the same time as the application to organise the Event:
a) One steward from among the ASNs nationals.
b) The clerk of the course.


They're two separate positions, nominated by separate bodies.

Tim Schenken is neither Race Director nor is he Charlie Whiting, but he is Clerk of the Course for the Australian GP.


There you go, I've learned something. I was wrong and you were right. Whiting is the Race Director. My point stands that, as Race Director, he has to know the sporting regs inside out and back to front, and if a team wants clarification on the meaning of a sporting regulation, he is the natural person for them to call. There is as far as I know nobody else at the FIA whose job it is to provide advice and guidance to teams on the sporting regs.

This point came up at the tribunal and Brawn said it was his understanding that Whiting was the person to go to with queries such as the one about whether they were permitted to bring their 2013 car to the Barcelona test, and that point was not challenged by the FIA.

#647 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,972 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 23 July 2013 - 22:28

You're just avoiding confronting the issue which is the relevance or otherwise to the legality of Mercedes' actions of Bernard's condition that "Pirelli shall invite all competitors to participate in such tests, and be able at any time to demonstrate that it has done so".

No, we both agree on that - Pirelli didn't do their bit.

What you're hiding from is the fact that Mercedes are still responsible for their own actions, and can't just say 'but Carlie, but Pirelli...'

It doesn't matter much any more, but it's true.

Even the tribunal agreed :)

#648 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,972 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 23 July 2013 - 22:34

There you go, I've learned something. I was wrong and you were right. Whiting is the Race Director. My point stands that, as Race Director, he has to know the sporting regs inside out and back to front, and if a team wants clarification on the meaning of a sporting regulation, he is the natural person for them to call. There is as far as I know nobody else at the FIA whose job it is to provide advice and guidance to teams on the sporting regs.

Hint in job description (not Test Director).

This point came up at the tribunal and Brawn said it was his understanding that Whiting was the person to go to with queries such as the one about whether they were permitted to bring their 2013 car to the Barcelona test, and that point was not challenged by the FIA.

Um, you sure? I've not time to look it up but I'm pretty sure they did.

Could be wrong.

#649 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,391 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 24 July 2013 - 08:30

Hint in job description (not Test Director).


Um, you sure? I've not time to look it up but I'm pretty sure they did.

Could be wrong.


The FIA argued that Whiting cannot give approval for an illegal test, which is something that as far as I‘m aware nobody but you disputes. Because the FIA was also arguing that the test was illegal, it followed that they had to argue that, to the extent that Whiting may have purported to approve the test, he was exceeding his authority. But, like you, they were unable to challlenge Brawn‘s assertion that Whiting is the right person for the teams to ask about this sort of thing by saying to whom else they ought to have directed their query.

In actual fact, as my posts above demonstrate in some detail, Whiting was not purporting to authorise an illegal test but expressing the view that the proposed test wouldn‘t contravene Article 22 of the sporting regulations. The condition about inviting the other teams has no relevance to the question of legality. That question is now settled; Whiting and Mercedes thought a tyre test could be viewed as an undertaking by the tyre company and not the competitor but the tribunal has decided otherwise. That‘s the "good faith" issue for you in a nutshell. This is an object case of a team doing something illegal while believing it to be legal, as distinct from knowing full well that something is illegal and doing it anyway.

That‘s why a reprimand and exclusion from the YDT was regarded as an appropriate penalty, and it‘s why the alteration of the penalty after fact by Todt provoked a certain amount of criticism - it seems like the actions of somebody who is just pissed off that Mercedes had the temerity to attempt to defend themselves against the charges thereby drawing attention to Whiting‘s incorrect advice and the subsequent FIA u-turn.

Edited by redreni, 24 July 2013 - 08:34.