FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[vaptin]

There may be very little chance for the FIA to win at this one.


----

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. The only exception is that each competitor is permitted up to eight promotional events, carried out using tyres provided specifically for this purpose by the appointed supplier, to a maximum distance of 100kms per event.

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules ... 3/fia.html

So it's only "testing" if using a car that is older than 2 years which doesn't conform substantially to the current f1 regulations, Mercedes argue Ferrari's car when they tested this year was legal, and the FIA already looked at that car and test, and seemed sissified too.

So well, all these other rules, it seems, perhaps only apply to "track testing", which Ferrari have a case that well, they didn't do.

Thinking about it, I'm not sure about what I just said above (it's well, accuracy), can you guys quote the regulations you are saying Ferrari breached?

Ah I thought 22.1 stated previous or subsequent years, not previous or subsequent year

in that case you are right and Ferrari would just say it wasnt a test full stop

Lets say Merc were to suddenly have a car that had made a massive gain on tyre wear, and they then had a 2 sec advantage and won everything, there would be nothing the FIA could do about that, they could not handicap Merc or give the other teams free testing

It would mirror RBRs flapping front wing scam. Would love to see Horners face if that happened as they must be worried about Merc

Well, yes, but I don't think Mercedes gained an advantage, the tribunal seemed sure they didn't look for one.

I think the condition for Perelli's tyre tests, still stands anyway.

I suppose the FIA could investigate again, then retrial/ appeal and say the findings that Mercedes didn't look for an advantage were incorrect, or that the tribunal ruled without knowing what the advantage was (which has now got new evidence).

It's not analogous to the alleged front wing flexing, that was tested for with more stringent tests, and never found to be in breach.

[CookinFlat6]

The finding was that Merc did not seek to deceive to gain an advantage. Any advantage is therefore incidental as it was a result of a misdeamenour that has been punished. They could not turn around and say the amount of advantage is evidence when they were not guilty of breaking rules intending to profit.

The MERCEDES AMG PETRONAS Formula One Team acknowledges and accepts the Decision of the FIA International Tribunal published today. The Decision of the International Tribunal confirmed that the team acted in good faith regarding the Pirelli Tests, never intended to obtain any unfair sporting advantage and had no reason to believe that approval for the Pirelli Tests had not been given. Mercedes accepts the proportionate penalties of a reprimand and suspension from the forthcoming Young Driver Test that have been decided upon by the Tribunal."

[vaptin]

The finding was that Merc did not seek to deceive to gain an advantage. Any advantage is therefore incidental as it was a result of a misdeamenour that has been punished. They could not turn around and say the amount of advantage is evidence when they were not guilty of breaking rules intending to profit.

The MERCEDES AMG PETRONAS Formula One Team acknowledges and accepts the Decision of the FIA International Tribunal published today. The Decision of the International Tribunal confirmed that the team acted in good faith regarding the Pirelli Tests, never intended to obtain any unfair sporting advantage and had no reason to believe that approval for the Pirelli Tests had not been given. Mercedes accepts the proportionate penalties of a reprimand and suspension from the forthcoming Young Driver Test that have been decided upon by the Tribunal."

Yes, but one could appeal the original judgement I think, against Mercedes.

Interestingly, the tribunal states their punishment aims to negate any advantage, possibly believing the young drivers test where the teams can have full control of the test will equal the Mercedes test, even if the teams are using drivers who haven't competed in F1 races. I guess that's why Ferrari hired Pedro, Binachi who used to do these tests for them has a race seat now, and I think it's been over 2 years since Pedro last competed in a race.

[Ferrari man 009]

The finding was that Merc did not seek to deceive to gain an advantage. Any advantage is therefore incidental as it was a result of a misdeamenour that has been punished. They could not turn around and say the amount of advantage is evidence when they were not guilty of breaking rules intending to profit.

The MERCEDES AMG PETRONAS Formula One Team acknowledges and accepts the Decision of the FIA International Tribunal published today. The Decision of the International Tribunal confirmed that the team acted in good faith regarding the Pirelli Tests, never intended to obtain any unfair sporting advantage and had no reason to believe that approval for the Pirelli Tests had not been given. Mercedes accepts the proportionate penalties of a reprimand and suspension from the forthcoming Young Driver Test that have been decided upon by the Tribunal."

Yes, but one could appeal the original judgement I think, against Mercedes.

Interestingly, the tribunal states their punishment aims to negate any advantage, possibly believing the young drivers test where the teams can have full control of the test will equal the Mercedes test, even if the teams are using drivers who haven't competed in F1 races. I guess that's why Ferrari hired Pedro, Binachi who used to do these tests for them has a race seat now, and I think it's been over 2 years since Pedro last competed in a race.

Pedro raced last season, but Ferrari have Gene, who hasnt raced since 2005 I think - so he could potentially do some running I think.

[darwin dali]

WTF? Really?
So the story is about Mercedes and Pirelli at the tribunal and this moron of a journo comes up with this retarded headline and makes it look as if it was all about LH. What? Was he ill and he needed to be given an all-clear from the FIA doctor?

[darwin dali]

Paul Harris, the lawyer representing Mercedes at the Paris hearing, had suggested to tribunal president Edwin Glasgow in his summing up that missing the young driver test could be a suitable way of redressing any injustice.

"It is somewhat perplexing to say the least to see that the guilty party can get away virtually scot free for having derived "an unfair sporting advantage," commented the anonymous Ferrari columnist.

"What if this whole incident had taken place after the young driver test? What would have been the penalty then? Would they have been forbidden from holding an end of year dinner?" - Reuters



They have a point there with the dinner

[darwin dali]

Pirelli may sue the FIA
Horse Whisperer: “Don’t tell me that testing for three days on your own at the Catalunya circuit is the same as doing so with nine other teams at Silverstone with a host of young hopefuls at the wheel.”

[LRW]

WTF? Really?
So the story is about Mercedes and Pirelli at the tribunal and this moron of a journo comes up with this retarded headline and makes it look as if it was all about LH. What? Was he ill and he needed to be given an all-clear from the FIA doctor?

No. He isn't a journalist, as he works for the daily star! It's a comic, not a newspaper.

[darwin dali]

WTF? Really?
So the story is about Mercedes and Pirelli at the tribunal and this moron of a journo comes up with this retarded headline and makes it look as if it was all about LH. What? Was he ill and he needed to be given an all-clear from the FIA doctor?

No. He isn't a journalist, as he works for the daily star! It's a comic, not a newspaper.

Hence moron of a journo

[racechick]

Pirelli may sue the FIA
Horse Whisperer: “Don’t tell me that testing for three days on your own at the Catalunya circuit is the same as doing so with nine other teams at Silverstone with a host of young hopefuls at the wheel.”

So he doesn't think Ferrari gained any advantage for testing at The Catalunya track directly before the GP was held there?

[spankyham]

Pirelli may sue the FIA
Horse Whisperer: “Don’t tell me that testing for three days on your own at the Catalunya circuit is the same as doing so with nine other teams at Silverstone with a host of young hopefuls at the wheel.”

So he doesn't think Ferrari gained any advantage for testing at The Catalunya track directly before the GP was held there?

How about this, seemings as you clearly think testing in a completely different 2 year old car is the same as testing in your current car, how about Merc turn up at next years pre-season testing and, instead of running their 2014 car, they do all their testing with the W03.

[spankyham]

WTF? Really?
So the story is about Mercedes and Pirelli at the tribunal and this moron of a journo comes up with this retarded headline and makes it look as if it was all about LH. What? Was he ill and he needed to be given an all-clear from the FIA doctor?

No. He isn't a journalist, as he works for the daily star! It's a comic, not a newspaper.

Hence moron of a journo

I think you've both missed the point here. The Dailystar is a front for a secret Italian organization that uses hypnosis and mind control techniques developed by a secret Tifosi organization. We have a global network of media under our control.

[andrew]

Most Daily Star readers couldn't spell Tifosi and are only just able to comprehend footyball. The paper is only good for putting your boot on.

[racechick]

Pirelli may sue the FIA
Horse Whisperer: “Don’t tell me that testing for three days on your own at the Catalunya circuit is the same as doing so with nine other teams at Silverstone with a host of young hopefuls at the wheel.”

So he doesn't think Ferrari gained any advantage for testing at The Catalunya track directly before the GP was held there?

How about this, seemings as you clearly think testing in a completely different 2 year old car is the same as testing in your current car, how about Merc turn up at next years pre-season testing and, instead of running their 2014 car, they do all their testing with the W03.

Weeeeell, if the one with the two year old car could run their own test and the one with the 2014 car could only be directed by the tyre company, then I might go for the old car. But it will be a different thing in 2014 because a lot changes, it's been stable for the last few years, so the two years doesn't make so much difference.

[andrew]

Compare the 2011 Ferrari and the 2013 Ferrari - there are several changes and the cars are substantially different! There reg's have maybe been stable but there is enough room in the reg's to allow for design changes.