FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[darwin dali]

I find that I have to slim him down considerably first in my mind

Not as much as you'd have to for Norbert Haug

[What's Burning?]

I disagree, if you commit a crime eg take drugs, then that became legalised, and the criminal was in rehab (punishment) then would they release that person from rehab or would they have to finish the punishment?

You're right. But in your argument you're simply stating the claim that you serve the sentence passed to you at the time.

My argument is that Mercedes is willing to serve that and forgo the YDT as ordered. But why should they be excluded from an additional day of testing with race drivers testing a new compound tire for safety reasons?

You can disagree all you want but legally you're wrong and if Mercedes take this to the tribunal they will once again win their argument.

[Jabberwocky]

OK so if Mercedes does the YDT they will have done 2Mm of testing with race drivers compared to 1Mm for everyone else, so how is that fair?

Mercedes misses the test and then everyone has done 1Mm of testing. However Merc still have the advantage of that extra knowledge that the other teams do no have between the "Secret" test and the YDT.

[vaptin]

Perelli will still be issuing the same tyres for everyone, so the safety will be evaluated by other teams.

It's more like, being fined 10 euros, only for inflation to dramatically change, you'd still have to pay 10 euros, but it'd be worth a different amount.

Or to be sentenced to a prison, only for that prison to be taken over by a hard-nosed governor the next day.

I suppose someone could make statements about time being relative too, you're sentenced for 10 years, only the only prison with space left is next to a black whole.

Or I guess, being sentenced to some out-door community service, but when you get there, it is raining heavily.

If Mercedes wanted to test safety, they already had the chance.

[racechick]

Well no they didn't because they weren't running the test Pirelli was. And whatever Pirelli discovered about safety they chose to ignore.

[LewEngBridewell]

I find that I have to slim him down considerably first in my mind

Not as much as you'd have to for Norbert Haug

[spankyham]

I disagree, if you commit a crime eg take drugs, then that became legalised, and the criminal was in rehab (punishment) then would they release that person from rehab or would they have to finish the punishment?

You're right. But in your argument you're simply stating the claim that you serve the sentence passed to you at the time.

My argument is that Mercedes is willing to serve that and forgo the YDT as ordered. But why should they be excluded from an additional day of testing with race drivers testing a new compound tire for safety reasons?

You can disagree all you want but legally you're wrong and if Mercedes take this to the tribunal they will once again win their argument.

I have to side with Jabby here mate. You're argument has logic but the implication is wrong. As you say a fine itself cannot be directly changed - however, external sources can change the effect of the fine and that cannot be disputed by Mercedes (in this case) or the convicted party in any other example you give.

In the case of someone getting a fine, imagine you are Australian in the US and you earn Australia dollars. You are fined in April in a US court $1000. At the time, that means you pay AUD$950. When you receive the bill from the court you go and pay today (July) and you have to fork over AUD$1100. You have no case to complain as the currency fluctuations are extraneous to the fine.

The changes to the YDT - longer time and team drivers being allowed to participate have been necessitated by the generally accepted external changes to the landscape (tire problems from Silverstone).

All the complaints from the Mercedes fan-base may be understandable, but, as I mentioned previously, if the YDT went ahead and it poured down with rain and little testing was completed then that would just be bad luck for the teams testing.

[What's Burning?]

I'm looking at this from a legal standpoint, not from a biased team fan's pov. I understand the argument. I mean, really we talk a lot here and we' don't know if Mercedes will even balk at it. They may remain very quiet about it all... have cat that swallowed the canary thing going on and the less waves made the better. But my argument has not been to include Merc into the YDT because of the changes allowing current drivers. My argument was only pertaining to the additional day, not originally part of the YDT. So in essence, the debt is paid by the first three days given up. If you commit a crime today and the law mandates you serve 5 years for that crime, that is set. If the law is changed the followin week stating that crime now carries a sentence of 8 years, you can't go back and add that to the defendant.

IMO It is being added because of obvious safety concerns and it's understandable, however to exclude Mercedes from that additional day is unsporting and seems vengeful if looked at in the right light.

After all, this isn't an uncontrolled market situation, it's the FiA making a conscious decision to change the test. So you can argue that if they didn't want to intrude on the three days of team/YDT. So the additional day is for the teams to test the new Pirelli (changed for safety sake) compound. One more item of note, can anyone say unequivocally that the newly revised tire/s that Pirelli will be testing have already been thoroughly tested by Mercedes? Given the tribunal testimony, I'm thinking the answer is no. There would be a tremendous liability if anything would go wrong from a safety standpoint on a W04.

I'm looking at this from a legal standpoint, not from a biased team fan's pov.

[spankyham]

I'm looking at this from a legal standpoint, not from a biased team fan's pov. I understand the argument. I mean, really we talk a lot here and we' don't know if Mercedes will even balk at it. They may remain very quiet about it all... have cat that swallowed the canary thing going on and the less waves made the better. But my argument has not been to include Merc into the YDT because of the changes allowing current drivers. My argument was only pertaining to the additional day, not originally part of the YDT. So in essence, the debt is paid by the first three days given up. If you commit a crime today and the law mandates you serve 5 years for that crime, that is set. If the law is changed the followin week stating that crime now carries a sentence of 8 years, you can't go back and add that to the defendant.

IMO It is being added because of obvious safety concerns and it's understandable, however to exclude Mercedes from that additional day is unsporting and seems vengeful if looked at in the right light.

After all, this isn't an uncontrolled market situation, it's the FiA making a conscious decision to change the test. So you can argue that if they didn't want to intrude on the three days of team/YDT. So the additional day is for the teams to test the new Pirelli (changed for safety sake) compound. One more item of note, can anyone say unequivocally that the newly revised tire/s that Pirelli will be testing have already been thoroughly tested by Mercedes? Given the tribunal testimony, I'm thinking the answer is no. There would be a tremendous liability if anything would go wrong from a safety standpoint on a W04.

I'm looking at this from a legal standpoint, not from a biased team fan's pov.

I tried to give my answer from a legal pov If you wanted to get technical, if the punishment had said that Mercedes were to be excluded from 2 days testing at the YDT then Merc could and would argue they should be allowed to participate in any extended days at the YDT. However, Mercedes punishment was to be excluded from the YDT, so they they can't ask or expect to be included in additional days at the YDT. Merc won't protest about this. What Merc could conceivably protest would be the adding of a day to the YDT. Legally they might mount an effective case there as testing is well defined and this added day is a clear deviation. I think they might not do that either though as it would be such a contrary position to their stated view that tire testing/changes are needed on safety grounds.

[What's Burning?]

I'm thinking that Mercedes will choose to quit while they're ahead.

[bud]

IMO It is being added because of obvious safety concerns and it's understandable, however to exclude Mercedes from that additional day is unsporting and seems vengeful if looked at in the right light.

I understand the concerns in regards to safety seeing how the tyres went at Silverstone but one could argue how was it fair and sporting to only use Mercedes to test tyres after Barcelona?

Pirelli will gain valuable data from all teams at the YDT and this will filter through to Mercedes, just as apparently only using one team was sufficient for Pirelli to make tyres for all the teams.

[racechick]

The FIA has further relaxed the conditions for the YDT
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/108583

[CookinFlat6]

Merc taking a stand

The FIA has opened the door to the forthcoming Silverstone test possibly being extended from three to four days, and Mercedes, banned from the test as a result of their role in ‘test-gate’, has accepted that it will not be allowed to run for the originally-scheduled three days.

However director Toto Wolff hinted the German team will push to attend, if the test is extended to a fourth day. “Now we’re being punished more, because the other teams can use their proper drivers, but we accept it for the purposes of safety.”

“But if there is a fourth test day, we will fight to have this day,” he revealed to Germany’s Bild newspaper.

[racechick]

Good for him!

[vaptin]

Haven't Bild reported loads of stuff that wasn't true at all about F1?