FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[What's Burning?]

I'm just waiting for the results of the tribunal; we are speculating on this, that and the other, we don't have all the facts (if any), hopefully it'll become clearer tomorrow.

I think we do have all the facts. The various summaries given by people in be courtroom are pretty much what's been said all along. What we don't know is what the tribunal will decide but the arguments have remained constant. There were a few pieces of additional info but most of those only served to strengthen Mercedes' argument. IMO.

[spankyham]

...they didn't test any parts...

So the W04 doesn't have any parts
Mercedes tested a whole, complete current car worth of parts with a full works Mercedes team with drivers present.

Well Ferrari have already done two tests....

I've pointed this out before, "Ferrari" did not do/perform any tests. No Ferrari engineers or current drivers were present.

[spankyham]

I'm just waiting for the results of the tribunal; we are speculating on this, that and the other, we don't have all the facts (if any), hopefully it'll become clearer tomorrow.

I think we do have all the facts. The various summaries given by people in be courtroom are pretty much what's been said all along. What we don't know is what the tribunal will decide but the arguments have remained constant. There were a few pieces of additional info but most of those only served to strengthen Mercedes' argument. IMO.

I agree that all the salient facts are out now. We also have the summations from Pirelli, Merc and the FiA. To me the ones who look the most inept out of all this are Charlie and is offsider.

The most interesting thing I've learned from the hearing is that Pirelli are bound to the sporting regs under their contract with the FiA. To me, they have come out of the hearing worse than when they went into it.

Mercedes got an approval from Charlie, that is crystal clear now. With hindsight I'm sure Merc would handle this test differently, they would/should have insisted on getting something from Charlie in writing covering what he committed to verbally, that's their mistake.

[spankyham]

The not really you fools I'm joking URL is a clue as well.

That requires that you actually click on the link because you're still believing it

Actually, when you "mouse over" the link the url will be displayed on the bottom left hand corner of your window - at least with Firefox and IE default settings. No need to click the link to see the "not really you fools" clue

[LRW]

I clicked on the link and it just said error on page. So I thought either that's there because we aren't supposed to know yet and it's been leaked, or it's just my computer doing an error.

If you click on the link, the url giving the game away would show as the address at the top of the page...

I didnt think anyone would fall for it, for more than a second. I just wanted to give a few people heart attacks.

(and DD spotted my error in writing WDC instead WCC - darn my fast fingers)

[racechick]

You can't mouse over with iPad.

[Ferrari man 009]

Well Ferrari have already done two tests.
And when Mercedes tested they didn't test any parts. It wasn't their test.

Ferrari used a 2011 car, this is legal.

Mercedes used a 2013 car, this is illegal

That is the difference.

[LRW]

Well Ferrari have already done two tests.
And when Mercedes tested they didn't test any parts. It wasn't their test.

Ferrari used a 2011 car, this is egal.

Mercedes used a 2013 car, this is illegal

That is the difference.

But the highlighted bit is what Mercedes are trying to argue.

[1Lemon]

Well Ferrari have already done two tests.
And when Mercedes tested they didn't test any parts. It wasn't their test.

Ferrari used a 2011 car, this is egal.

Mercedes used a 2013 car, this is illegal

That is the difference.

But the highlighted bit is what Mercedes are trying to argue.

Their arguing that they broke the rules?

[LRW]

Well Ferrari have already done two tests.
And when Mercedes tested they didn't test any parts. It wasn't their test.

Ferrari used a 2011 car, this is egal.

Mercedes used a 2013 car, this is illegal

That is the difference.

But the highlighted bit is what Mercedes are trying to argue.

Their arguing that they broke the rules?

No, that the rules dont actually say what you say they say. You see?

I think the argument is, the rules dont actually state a year of car, just the the cars need to be significantly different. And they believe the 2011-2013 Ferrari is not significantly different. So therefore if Ferrari are innocent using a not significantly different car, then Mercedes must also be found innocent.

So it comes down to the definition of 'significantly'. Do the rules state what 'significantly' is? Probably not - this is probably the grey loop hole they are trying to jump through.

thats only my understanding of what they are trying to argue though..... I could of got it wrong.

[spankyham]

You can't mouse over with iPad.

that'll teach ya for buying a crapple

[LRW]

You can't mouse over with iPad.

that'll teach ya for buying a crapple

Can you 'mouse over' with any touch device...?

[1Lemon]

Well Ferrari have already done two tests.
And when Mercedes tested they didn't test any parts. It wasn't their test.

Ferrari used a 2011 car, this is egal.

Mercedes used a 2013 car, this is illegal

That is the difference.

But the highlighted bit is what Mercedes are trying to argue.

Their arguing that they broke the rules?

No, that the rules dont actually say what you say they say. You see?

I think the argument is, the rules dont actually state a year of car, just the the cars need to be significantly different. And they believe the 2011-2013 Ferrari is not significantly different. So therefore if Ferrari are innocent using a not significantly different car, then Mercedes must also be found innocent.

So it comes down to the definition of 'significantly'. Do the rules state what 'significantly' is? Probably not - this is probably the grey loop hole they are trying to jump through.

thats only my understanding of what they are trying to argue though..... I could of got it wrong.

Someone quoted the article this is related too, I'll struggle to find it again, but I think it did explicitly mention a 2 year gap between cars.

[racechick]

Yes . That's how I understand it. It's how you interpret significant difference. There's nothing that says 2011 is legal and 2013 isn't.
Also Ferrari ran their test on the track where the Gp was being held just BEFORE the GP, not after like Mercedes. And they tested things of their own.
You can't say one is guilty and not the other.

[LRW]

Someone quoted the article this is related too, I'll struggle to find it again, but I think it did explicitly mention a 2 year gap between cars.

This is what I could find...

22.1 Track testing shall be considered any track running time not part of an Event undertaken by a competitor entered in the Championship, using cars which conform substantially with the current Formula One Technical Regulations in addition to those from the previous or subsequent year.

So does the 2011 Ferrari conform substantially with the current Formula One Technical Regulations in addition to those from the previous or subsequent year?

Again, its all down the word substantially which could be interpreted in many ways...

My opinion is: the 2011 Ferrari car would conform substantially with the current Formula One Technical Regulations. And therefore its my opinion a precedent has been set, and Mercedes cannot be found guilty.

BUT my opinion counts for s***.