FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[What's Burning?]

Interestingly, if Mercer's do win, it might just be a way for all teams to start testing with 2013 cars . . . since Merecede's are basically arguing testing with 2013 cars is the same as the stuff teams do with 2011 cars.

Not sure the rules contradict hammer? It says, 1, the car must be two years old, 2, the 2 year old car must be substantially different, no? Both clauses can co-exist if I've read them right.

Define substantially different when the times are < .5%

[spankyham]

But the cars aren't that different. And a demonstration isn't the same as a test. Ferrari did a test. And last year Massa drove the car and the test was secret. How is that so different?

You think there's no difference when you go from push rod to pull rod suspension?
You think there's no difference between a fully blown diffuser and not?
You think there's no difference fixed weight distribution and no fixed distribution?
++++++

As I said, this is a silly line to pursue and, IMO, loses Merc credibility. Fair enough try and draw parallels between Ferrari doing tests, it will help them mitigate what was done, but they are on a loser trying to imply there's any way you could test parts on a car that different. In fact, when you think about it, it may actually be a reason to draw a heavier penalty. If you accept Mercs own argument there is some benefit to be gained from running a 2 year old car with all those difference, then Merc must have gained enormous knowledge by running their 2013 car.

[Hammer278]

A summary of the Tribunal activities:

The FIA International Tribunal was certainly an interesting way to spend a day, even if a lot of the deliberations sounded like re-rehashing of the same old points.
First, the FIA took to the stage – so to speak – outlining their case against Mercedes and Pirelli. Then lawyers for both defendants had their chance to put their cases forward, arguing that the ‘secret Barcelona test’ had – as far as they were aware at the time – complied fully with the FIA rulebook.
At the time of typing, no decision has yet been made public, and no decision is expected until Friday.
But from where I’m sitting (the Salle de Commissaires at the FIA headquarters, if you’re wondering), it looks like it will be very difficult for the Tribunal to issue either Pirelli or Mercedes with more than slaps on the wrist.
Whatever the official procedure for establishing whether or not something is legal in the Sporting Regulations, the accepted procedure has long been that the questioning party check with Charlie Whiting, who then refers the question to the FIA’s legal department should he think it necessary to do so.
According to the Mercedes lawyers – and not denied by anyone from the FIA – the Brackley-based team not only asked Whiting for permission to test with a 2013 car, but that when the race director gave his approval, they then asked for him to confirm the decision with the FIA legal department, which he did.
Both Whiting and Sebastien Bernard gave Mercedes explicit permission to test with a current car. Neither Whiting nor Bernard gave Mercedes any indication that their approval was not good enough, that they needed to put the matter to the World Motor Sport Council before official permission could be presumed.
Given that, how can Mercedes be punished for breaking a rule when it is patently clear that they took every step they thought necessary to ensure legality? As Paul Harris QC said in his closing statement to the Tribunal, Mercedes would not have gone ahead with the test had they been given the slightest indication from the FIA that to do so would get them in any sort of trouble.
It’s a pretty convincing argument…

[vaptin]

Interestingly, if Mercer's do win, it might just be a way for all teams to start testing with 2013 cars . . . since Merecede's are basically arguing testing with 2013 cars is the same as the stuff teams do with 2011 cars.

Not sure the rules contradict hammer? It says, 1, the car must be two years old, 2, the 2 year old car must be substantially different, no? Both clauses can co-exist if I've read them right.

Which isn't the case according to Mercedes. I mean if you have wording which is vague in this manner, almost anything can be contested. In this case Mercedes have interpreted it as "not substantially different"...how do the FIA counter that?

Well, by saying it is substantially different, or by asking Ferrari to explain their side of it,

but it doesn't relate to the car having to be 2 years old in the first place I think, the car has to be 2 years old and substantially different, Mercedes' car failed the first one, but they are accusing Ferrari of breaking the second one, what if the FIA say, Ferrari's wasn't substitutionally different, but well, yours wasn't either but it was still not 2 years old?

[What's Burning?]

A summary of the Tribunal activities:

The FIA International Tribunal was certainly an interesting way to spend a day, even if a lot of the deliberations sounded like re-rehashing of the same old points.
First, the FIA took to the stage – so to speak – outlining their case against Mercedes and Pirelli. Then lawyers for both defendants had their chance to put their cases forward, arguing that the ‘secret Barcelona test’ had – as far as they were aware at the time – complied fully with the FIA rulebook.
At the time of typing, no decision has yet been made public, and no decision is expected until Friday.
But from where I’m sitting (the Salle de Commissaires at the FIA headquarters, if you’re wondering), it looks like it will be very difficult for the Tribunal to issue either Pirelli or Mercedes with more than slaps on the wrist.
Whatever the official procedure for establishing whether or not something is legal in the Sporting Regulations, the accepted procedure has long been that the questioning party check with Charlie Whiting, who then refers the question to the FIA’s legal department should he think it necessary to do so.
According to the Mercedes lawyers – and not denied by anyone from the FIA – the Brackley-based team not only asked Whiting for permission to test with a 2013 car, but that when the race director gave his approval, they then asked for him to confirm the decision with the FIA legal department, which he did.
Both Whiting and Sebastien Bernard gave Mercedes explicit permission to test with a current car. Neither Whiting nor Bernard gave Mercedes any indication that their approval was not good enough, that they needed to put the matter to the World Motor Sport Council before official permission could be presumed.
Given that, how can Mercedes be punished for breaking a rule when it is patently clear that they took every step they thought necessary to ensure legality? As Paul Harris QC said in his closing statement to the Tribunal, Mercedes would not have gone ahead with the test had they been given the slightest indication from the FIA that to do so would get them in any sort of trouble.
It’s a pretty convincing argument…

Not for some on this forum.

[vaptin]

A summary of the Tribunal activities:

The FIA International Tribunal was certainly an interesting way to spend a day, even if a lot of the deliberations sounded like re-rehashing of the same old points.
First, the FIA took to the stage – so to speak – outlining their case against Mercedes and Pirelli. Then lawyers for both defendants had their chance to put their cases forward, arguing that the ‘secret Barcelona test’ had – as far as they were aware at the time – complied fully with the FIA rulebook.
At the time of typing, no decision has yet been made public, and no decision is expected until Friday.
But from where I’m sitting (the Salle de Commissaires at the FIA headquarters, if you’re wondering), it looks like it will be very difficult for the Tribunal to issue either Pirelli or Mercedes with more than slaps on the wrist.
Whatever the official procedure for establishing whether or not something is legal in the Sporting Regulations, the accepted procedure has long been that the questioning party check with Charlie Whiting, who then refers the question to the FIA’s legal department should he think it necessary to do so.
According to the Mercedes lawyers – and not denied by anyone from the FIA – the Brackley-based team not only asked Whiting for permission to test with a 2013 car, but that when the race director gave his approval, they then asked for him to confirm the decision with the FIA legal department, which he did.
Both Whiting and Sebastien Bernard gave Mercedes explicit permission to test with a current car. Neither Whiting nor Bernard gave Mercedes any indication that their approval was not good enough, that they needed to put the matter to the World Motor Sport Council before official permission could be presumed.
Given that, how can Mercedes be punished for breaking a rule when it is patently clear that they took every step they thought necessary to ensure legality? As Paul Harris QC said in his closing statement to the Tribunal, Mercedes would not have gone ahead with the test had they been given the slightest indication from the FIA that to do so would get them in any sort of trouble.
It’s a pretty convincing argument…

It seems to miss the part where, well, they were told the other teams had to be informed. . . or did the FIA not say that then?

Your uncited article, also contradicts the BBCs one, which says Whitening did say his opinion wasn't legally binding. . .

[What's Burning?]

It seems to miss the part where, well, they were told the other teams had to be informed. . . or did the FIA not say that then?

Would you change your mind if they didn't?

[spankyham]

Interestingly, if Mercer's do win, it might just be a way for all teams to start testing with 2013 cars . . . since Merecede's are basically arguing testing with 2013 cars is the same as the stuff teams do with 2011 cars.

Not sure the rules contradict hammer? It says, 1, the car must be two years old, 2, the 2 year old car must be substantially different, no? Both clauses can co-exist if I've read them right.

Define substantially different when the times are < .5%

Do you seem much difference between a supercar and superbike?

[LRW]

BREAKING NEWS!!!!!

Tribunal have reached a verdict. Pirelli - no charge. Mercedes - £50M fine and banned from WDC!!!!!



BBC Report

[vaptin]

It seems to miss the part where, well, they were told the other teams had to be informed. . . or did the FIA not say that then?

Would you change your mind if they didn't?

Well yeah since from my understanding it's what the permission was based on. . . and the main reason why the FIA think the test was illegal, as I've said many times in this thread, but I think they did, especially as Mercedes said at one point (or were quoted as saying) that they thought the other teams had been informed. . .

[vaptin]

BREAKING NEWS!!!!!

Tribunal have reached a verdict. Pirelli - no charge. Mercedes - £50M fine and banned from WDC!!!!!





BBC Report

Friday
[youtube]kfVsfOSbJY0[/youtube]

[Hammer278]

BREAKING NEWS!!!!!

Tribunal have reached a verdict. Pirelli - no charge. Mercedes - £50M fine and banned from WDC!!!!!



BBC Report

Just helping you make it look more legit

[andrew]

Your uncited article, also contradicts the BBCs one, which says Whitening did say his opinion wasn't legally binding. . .

I read another report which said Whiting gave permission verbally but not in writing and Mercedes didn't chase him for it.

It'll all come out tomorrow.

[What's Burning?]

BREAKING NEWS!!!!!

Tribunal have reached a verdict. Pirelli - no charge. Mercedes - £50M fine and banned from WDC!!!!!



BBC Report

OMG

[vaptin]

Your uncited article, also contradicts the BBCs one, which says Whitening did say his opinion wasn't legally binding. . .

I read another report which said Whiting gave permission verbally but not in writing and Mercedes didn't chase him for it.

It'll all come out tomorrow.

Screw that, I don't want to wait.