View on secret test done with Pirelli & Mercedes
Discussion
TheHeretic said:
mollytherocker said:
Threats eh?
I'm not sure the FIA will heed them. Why should they?
They shouldn't. They may as well just throw away the rule book if they do.I'm not sure the FIA will heed them. Why should they?
Scuffers said:
the flip side to this is telling bmw/audi/etc. that the FIA are duplicus c**nts and they better off steer clear.
Or it merely means that no team is above the rule book? You can view it however you wish. For the FIA to ignore the protests for whatever reason, especially as it seems their own protocols will be under scrutiny, would be far, far weaker. 
Scuffers said:
the flip side to this is telling bmw/audi/etc. that the FIA are duplicus c**nts and they better off steer clear.
Not sure what duplicus means, but I'm sure BMW/Audi et al would understand that there's a penalty for getting caught breaking the rules (if the tribunal finds that they did break said rules).I'm intrigued as to the reasoning behind ignoring the signed gentleman's agreement that any development testing requested by Pirelli was to be jointly approved by the teams and FIA. Why sign it if you have no intention of abiding by it? And why did Mercedes feel entitled to ignore it despite RB signing it?
TheHeretic said:
Scuffers said:
the flip side to this is telling bmw/audi/etc. that the FIA are duplicus c**nts and they better off steer clear.
Or it merely means that no team is above the rule book? You can view it however you wish. For the FIA to ignore the protests for whatever reason, especially as it seems their own protocols will be under scrutiny, would be far, far weaker. if they were compedant, thus would never have come up in the first place...
Scuffers said:
TheHeretic said:
Scuffers said:
the flip side to this is telling bmw/audi/etc. that the FIA are duplicus c**nts and they better off steer clear.
Or it merely means that no team is above the rule book? You can view it however you wish. For the FIA to ignore the protests for whatever reason, especially as it seems their own protocols will be under scrutiny, would be far, far weaker. if they were compedant, thus would never have come up in the first place...
RYH64E said:
Not sure what duplicus means, but I'm sure BMW/Audi et al would understand that there's a penalty for getting caught breaking the rules (if the tribunal finds that they did break said rules).
I'm intrigued as to the reasoning behind ignoring the signed gentleman's agreement that any development testing requested by Pirelli was to be jointly approved by the teams and FIA. Why sign it if you have no intention of abiding by it? And why did Mercedes feel entitled to ignore it despite RB signing it?
Why does it matter that it's RB rather than any other team? I still think Mercedes will have a good excuse, being right on the edge of what is legal but just inside. A test with F1 cars is never going to escape notice and it coming out like it has. Therefore I highly suspect they have a justification (however sketchy) that means it falls within the rules in the same way RB have done on a number of occasions.I'm intrigued as to the reasoning behind ignoring the signed gentleman's agreement that any development testing requested by Pirelli was to be jointly approved by the teams and FIA. Why sign it if you have no intention of abiding by it? And why did Mercedes feel entitled to ignore it despite RB signing it?
I think they will just find that the rulebook and the letter of FIA's clarification when put together are contradictory and ambiguous. Pirelli and Mercedes's interpretation could be valid. Similarly Ferrari and Red Bull's interpretation could also be valid and that brings us to a stalemate, from which position it's unfair to penalise Mercedes.
This will involve some egg on the face of the FIA but I don't think they have to worry about that; it's minor compared to the benefit of putting this behind them or protecting Pirelli.
The worst I can imagine above and beyond that is that Merc will lose their constructor (but not driver's) points but it seems unlikely.
This paves the way for Pirelli's 1000km contract rule to be clarified in more detail or replaced with in-season testing that will be equal to all teams and give Pirelli testing mileage.
This will involve some egg on the face of the FIA but I don't think they have to worry about that; it's minor compared to the benefit of putting this behind them or protecting Pirelli.
The worst I can imagine above and beyond that is that Merc will lose their constructor (but not driver's) points but it seems unlikely.
This paves the way for Pirelli's 1000km contract rule to be clarified in more detail or replaced with in-season testing that will be equal to all teams and give Pirelli testing mileage.
RYH64E said:
NRS said:
Why does it matter that it's RB rather than any other team?
Sorry for the confusion, by RB I meant Ross Brawn. The man who apparently signed the gentleman's agreement on brehalf of Mercedes is the same man who decided to test, in contravention of said agreement.
Hadn't thought of that explanation!mollytherocker said:
Threats eh?
I'm not sure the FIA will heed them. Why should they?
The FIA has, historically, shown itself to have little concern for the rules and regulations and more concern for its own interests. Implied, or maybe more, threats seem to have worked int he past. Further, most of its friendships are open to pressure.I'm not sure the FIA will heed them. Why should they?
When one team leader set alight to a car, a driver, mechanics, the pits and nearly the stands one might have thought that, when it was discovered that the team had fiddled with safety devices, those involved might be excluded from motorsport forever. But then it was at an inopportune time to ban a German driver, even if he'd been blatantly cheating.
Of concern to the FIA will be the reaction of Mercedes to any punishment. They could pull out without a second glance and take their engine with them. They could even sell the engine to other teams and come out with a profit. Mercedes Ltd board has a number of union representatives on it and they are quite powerful. It was they, some said, who demanded that MSc be brought back. Now he's gone, and more dramatically replaced by a black man (I would mention history with regards to race but Godwin might be invoked), so there might well be a bit of internal strife.
In addition we have some political pressure being exerted inside the Merc camp. Who would put money of Brawn being there at the start of next season? Will he require much pushing? These thingsgo on in most teams all the time, but that is beside the point. They are going on now in Merc in seems.
On top of that there is the floating of the commercial rights. I can't think that Merc clearing off would help the share price to a great extent. In the old days there would have been a meeting of minds but I'm not sure how Todt and Ecclestone get on.
So pressure to pull punches, or perhaps just sack Brawn, who might then clear off to his retirement villa without too much fuss and compensation for his contract loss.
But into this comes Red Bull. It seems to me that RB and Ferrari are in a bit of a power struggle. RB wants to run the show and, let's face it, to a great extent are vital to the sport. If they feel there's a whitewash (NewSpeak for things not going the way they wanted) then what's to stop them abandoning this expensive sport and taking their four cars with them, integrity intact?
That might well suit Ferrari.
I doubt it would please Ecclestone.
There was little regard for precedent and probity in the old regime. There has been a change, probably a significant one I feel, but Todt has little authority. I can't help feel he is more of a passenger in this. However, he does have one bit left: discipline. But will there be powerful people telling him which way it should go?
In the past those who sit in judgement have always followed the whip (see what I did there?) but things might well have changed at #8, Place de la Concord. Can they be controlled?
So there are many aspects to this, the least of which is whether Merc actually broke rules or not.
Whatever happens we will not really know. During the fuel filter incident we were told lots and lots of contradictory information from reputable and normally trustworthy media outlets - mags, papers and websites. It seemed as if different sections were being fed different stories. Later, when the bloke in charge was no longer flavour of the month, other stories appeared, hardly in his favour. The same happened during Stepneygate and the Piquet crash. I doubt things have changed at the FIA to the extent that we will get proper info.
This is a bad time for this type of incident. The new formula, a sell off, power struggles and Ecclestone under threat of a prosecution. There is never a good time I suppose, but there have been better.
I'm not sure this threat from share holders is helpful to any side, least of all Merc.
It's on Thursday.
johnfelstead said:
Websites were not where you would have found discussion on the Benetton fire in 1994 Derek!
Fair enough, during is inaccurate. But there was an awful lot on the internet about it later, especially certain f1 sites that have particular leanings. When the lawyer confessed it all started up again.Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff