Mercedes dodged the bullet hear, yes the FiA f**ked up, but the principles of Mercedes also knew that it was borderline illegal and went ahead anyway, if it was all 100% above board, then why have their drivers wear plain black helmets and have all the 'privacy', I don't buy the lack of security/body guards excuse. I believe the advantage they gained from the tyre test is more than what they'd gain from the young drivers test as they had their race drivers in the cars instead of non F1 rookie drivers.
The best solution would be not punish Mercedes and let the other 9 teams (less Ferrari) have 1000km of *tyre* testing after Silverstone, then we are back on a level playing field!
The other teams had their chance, they were all ask. And in the case of Ferrari they've had two tests 
Erm. the other teams didn't have an equal chance, read verdict.
(vi) No other team was aware of the fact that such advantage might be, or
had been, obtained, notwithstanding the assurance which had been given
by Paul Hembery to Charlie Whiting, as set out in paragraph 5 above;
and the Tribunal notes that, when giving that assurance, Paul Hembery
had not indicated to Charlie Whiting that the notification which Pirelli
had already given to all teams in 2012 could satisfy the assurance which
was being sought
http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... IT-2013-01)-Decision%20(EN).pdf
Spanky, I disagree with you, the punishment is in line with accepting the argument Mercedes acted in good faith and broke the rules unintentionally, any team who attempts something similar won't be able to use that argument, since this tribunal ruled that Mercedes acted illegally.
I don't think Mercedes gained much of an advantage though,
And about the Ferrari tests, the Mercedes lawyer argued those tests were legal . .. and well, no one apart from on here has claimed those are illegal, Redbull are in a tighter fight with Ferrari than Mercedes lets see if they protest it.
Also, its not a loophole, or just a clarification, Mercedes were found to be in breach of the regulations, so were Perelli.
I agree with Spanky though, Charlie messed up, he gave a response he wasn't qualified to give like this one:
(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;
http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... IT-2013-01)-Decision%20(EN).pdf
It sounds bad, then until you read this:
(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;
So, Charlie again, messed up, had he worded it differently, the tribunal feels Mercedes and Perelli would have complied, although those two interepreated the wording differently to how I, Redbull and Ferrari did from the looks of things.
I think its only fair though, an investigation is made into what advantage was gained, and an effort made to equal that, even if it is done without further punishment to Mercedes.
Perelli got of very lightly, if it was their test, they ought to have done all the damn legwork. And they got it massively wrong, by claiming they weren't subject to the FIA regulations.
It's sad to see, some "fans" just care about their own team, and not the sport of the whole, and can't see how the health of the sport as a whole, is needed for the health of their team in a long term view.
just saw your edit.
