mercedes / pirelli tribunal thread
- Thread starter utajoker
- Start date
Soldato
That would be the point though, the FIA wouldn't be able to dish out a different punishment as it would show them up as being inconsistent, which everyone knows - RB would just be proving it royally.
Soldato
They could have their test but with out tires it's a waste of time
I think I'm right in saying that Pirelli had and paid for the test not Merc so give it up rb
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
It's Horner threatening to simply ignore the 3 day young driver test and do completely his own thing on the justification that Merc did "proper" testing and didn't get punished, not that he'd do a Pirelli test himself. its mostly toys out the pram stuff, from the biggest team of cheaters currently in the sport its quite hard not to dislike the guy.
Rules specifically say you can't have a flexible wing, Horner has a car that absolutely has a flexible wing but passes the completely inadequate test for it.. he is unquestionably going against the rules but in a way that the test didn't account for. RBR have been doing this for years and winning titles, so where he gets the nerve to pretend to be the hard done by party by also implying Merc got loads of useful data.... well I didn't like him before, but every time he opens his mouth I dislike him more.
There are guys who cheat, and thats bad enough, then there are guys who cheat who are also insane hypocrits running around exagerating, lying and accusing other teams of cheating while pretending they are saints.... those people are by far the worst.
General fans might be less knowledgeable but people within the sport know that Spain was the worst tyre track of the year and Monaco the best, suggesting a completely useless test had any effect is laughable, I'm embarrassed for the people in F1 who are suggesting Monaco is proof that Merc gained loads of valuable data.
Associate
Actually, they would be able to give a harsher punishment. If I understand the judgment correctly, Mercedes were found guilty of breaching the sporting regulations, but the punishment was mitigated by the "good faith" argument. The FIA (be it in an officially unofficial capacity) contributed to this mitigation by giving an implicit go-ahead for the test; that they backtracked on this later didn't look good for them.
If RBR were to go ahead with a private test, they would be doing so without even an implicit OK from the FIA. They'd be found just as guilty of breaching the regulations as Mercedes were, but without the mitigating factors. I'd expect to see a massive fine or points deduction in that case.
Taking the matter to a civil court wouldn't help matters either, as RBR would still have to prove that the FIA's tribunal findings were flawed. It would also be seen as petty and would lower RBR's stock in F1, which the sponsors aren't likely to be happy with. Even if they were to win, it'd be a massive embarrassment all round.
Bump due to an interesting turn...
Horner has asked the FIA if they can do a private tyre test in a 2013 car if they follow the conditions laid down in the initial Pirelli/Mercedes/FIA contact.
He's also asked if they are ok to run a 2011 car shortly before a grand prix *like Ferrari did* when the 2011 car conforms substantially to the current regulations.
Well, the 2013 request will be denied, but the 2011 car is something I've said several times. The rules have been reasonably steady so a 2011 car will in all likelihood conform substantially to 2012 or 2013 regs.
Sounds like a little bit of "We didn't think of doing it so we're going to ruin it for everyone.. ha ha ha ha ha!"
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/108390
Horner has asked the FIA if they can do a private tyre test in a 2013 car if they follow the conditions laid down in the initial Pirelli/Mercedes/FIA contact.
He's also asked if they are ok to run a 2011 car shortly before a grand prix *like Ferrari did* when the 2011 car conforms substantially to the current regulations.
Well, the 2013 request will be denied, but the 2011 car is something I've said several times. The rules have been reasonably steady so a 2011 car will in all likelihood conform substantially to 2012 or 2013 regs.
Sounds like a little bit of "We didn't think of doing it so we're going to ruin it for everyone.. ha ha ha ha ha!"
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/108390
Soldato
There is no rule that states that you cant have a flexible wing on the car, mostly because that would be physically impossible. The rules, which have changed over time to make the test harder, state that if X weights are placed on the end of the wing, it must not flex by more than Y amount*. I believe (but may be wrong on the numbers) that during the flexi wing controversy the rule was no more than 20mm of flex if 50kg was put on each end of the wing. The red bull wings were flexing by 19.9mm under this test so were legal. Later the rules were changed to two 50kg weights at each end of the wing placed in different places on their side of the wing with no more than 10mm of flex allowed. I dont have the numbers for this test, but I wouldn't be surprised if the red bull wing flexed by 9.9mm under this new test.
You may be getting confused by the rule which states that all parts of the car must be rigidly attached to the main chassis (or something to that effect). What this means is that the joint between the front wing and the body of the car is not allowed to be flexible. So, for example, bolting the wing on firmly would be acceptable, but attaching the wing with a sprung hinge would not be acceptable
If a weight in the nose of the car which never sees airflow can be considered moveable aero and a front wing that visibly twists and flexes can't be... Something's really wrong.
Soldato
I suspect a weight housed within the front wing that can be moved would be banned under a different ruling, probably to do with manually adjusting the weight distribution. If it was exposed to the air then of course it would be banned under moveable aero if the movement was controlled by the driver or if it was not attached rigidly to the body.
Look up the Renault Mass Damper - it was a sprung weight in a housing in the nose of the car - apparently moveable aero. Was an entirely passive and self enclosed system and had no interaction with any systems.
Passed all the regs for being ballast, but was banned as moveable aero.
Soldato
Ah yes, i vaguely remember that one. i really wasnt convinced by their ruling on that at all. i think they said something along the lines of its main purpose was to stop the car from diving under braking and that because that mostly gave an aerodynamic advantage it was banned, but i wasnt impressed with their reasoning at all
Soldato
That was at the height of the supposed FIA/Ferrari love affair, despite the fact that Ferrari themselves were using the sprung mass dampers in the nose and rear of the car, just as Renault were.
Really it's no different to the passive double-DRS Lotus are using this weekend on Kimi's car, where apparently a valve around the airbox controls whether to stall the rear wing or not based on airflow. Indeed, this double-DRS in theory is worse as the valve is directly influenced by the air and in turn changes the aerodynamic characteristics of the car.
Really it's no different to the passive double-DRS Lotus are using this weekend on Kimi's car, where apparently a valve around the airbox controls whether to stall the rear wing or not based on airflow. Indeed, this double-DRS in theory is worse as the valve is directly influenced by the air and in turn changes the aerodynamic characteristics of the car.
Are you getting confused with the brake-reactive suspension on the Lotus that was banned at the start of last season, which pushed the nose up to resist dive under braking?
The mass damper was something different, where the movement of the sprung mass counteracted the bounce of the front of the car and made the front wing height more stable.
There is no 'valve' in the Lotus Passive DRS (it isn't double as it doesn't operate on the front wing) as that would be moveable aero. It uses a fluidic switch which has no moving parts.
So Pirelli are doing two tests with the old Renault car and are allowed a 2013 car(s) to test with - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/108489
I wonder whether all the teams will have a chance or if they just pick a team?
I wonder whether all the teams will have a chance or if they just pick a team?
Deleted member 651465
D
Deleted member 651465
They should ask McLaren. Top 5 team, with a dog of a car.
Soldato
They are supposed to ask all of the teams, but on pirelli's side i would choose the team who has had the most problems with these tyre failures simply so it is more likely to find the cause of them. I'm not sure who that would make as the number one team to choose but i suspect it would be McLaren or Mercedes
Soldato
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/108493 said:
lol at Merc now having to miss what was going to be the young drivers test, but is in fact now going to be a normal test session with the normal drivers!
Haha, in your face Merc.