mercedes / pirelli tribunal thread

Sniff Petrol said:
Justice Malheureusement (chairman of the FIA International Tribunal hearing): Ladies and gentlemen, after much deliberation my colleagues and I have reached a verdict in this hearing. It is our view that, by taking part in the disputed three day tyre testing session in Barcelona, Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 team clearly and wilfully acted in breach of articles 1 and 151 ISC. We therefore have no choice but to punish the team to the full extent of our powers.

Sir Philip Ecspensyve (Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 legal representative): My client regretfully understands your verdict and certainly hopes it won’t affect Mercedes’ judgement about staying in Formula 1.

Justice Malheureusement: The punishment is as follows; Mercedes is to pay a fine of 100 million dollars and will be stripped of all world championship points accrued…

Bernard Ecclestone: [coughs loudly]

Justice Malheureusement: Erm… accrued to date in the 2013 seas…

Jean Todt: [coughs very loudly]

Justice Malheureusement: I’m sorry, I appear to have mis-read my own writing. The punishment accorded to Mercedes F1 is to be told that they are very naughty and to spend the next five minutes looking at their shoes. Furthermore, they will be sent to bed tonight with no supper.

Sir Philip Ecspensyve: My client respectfully accepts this punishment.

Justice Malheureusement: Good. Oh, and they can’t take part in the forthcoming young driver test day.

Sam Bird: [anguished cry]
Click to expand...

:D
 
Reading the judgement now.

the FIA said:
(1) The track testing, which is the subject of these proceedings, was not carried out by Pirelli and/or Mercedes with the intention that Mercedes should obtain any unfair sporting advantage.
(2) Neither Pirelli nor Mercedes acted in bad faith at any material time.
(3) Both Pirelli and Mercedes disclosed to FIA at least the essence of what they intended to do in relation to the test and attempted to obtain permission for it; and Mercedes had no reason to believe that approval had not been given.
(4) The actions taken on behalf of FIA by Charlie Whiting (having taken advice from the legal department of FIA) were taken in good faith and with the intention of assisting the parties and consistent with sporting fairness.
Click to expand...

So their ruling is that there was no deliberate intention to cheat shown, but that they gained an unfair advantage.

Oh, and for deuse:

the FIA said:
(iv) The Tribunal is unable to express any opinion as to whether or not the testing carried out by Ferrari in 2012 and 2013 was properly authorised but, it would appear to be equally unsatisfactory that this consent was also given by Charlie Whiting, the Tribunal has no evidence before it which indicates that his opinion in that case had in fact been wrong.
Click to expand...

Don't go quoting bits out of context bud ;) Seems to me like the constant in both the Ferrari and Merc cases is that Charlie Whiting gave consent for the test when he perhaps should not have.
 
Skeeter said:
snip.
Click to expand...

well scrabbled out of (not)

"Transmission is not the same as broadcasting" was your exact wording, in its own paragraph.

As R5L was also being discussed, tv pictures have nothing what so ever to do with it. tv is just one method of receiving a transmission / broadcast - whether the original source(s) are from different owners is completely irrelevant to your statement (how you originally wrote it).

I don't know how many other TV companies world wide take the BBC audio feed, but the BBC still broadcast it to those companies - and once received it is then broadcast to their own "subscribers".



Anyway - back on topic. It was always going to end up like this but its still a crock of ****. Mercedes have been given a slap on the wrist and nothing more even though they have gained irrefutably from the time spent on track and the data that was undoubtedly looked at (even if its only during the test itself). Each driver also got an immeasurable benefit from trying out how ever many sets of tyres without any penalty at all.

edit - Merc have gained far more from the test in question than any YDT could ever get them (apart from the points / performance advantage in the intervening races, that is unlikely to have occurred had they not gone to the secret test)
 
Last edited:
So just the ban from young driver test?
If so good verdict for once, it clear lumpy was not secret and with knowledge as the verdict showed.
 
Uh oh... Luca De Mentalzemolo's unofficial mouthpiece has been woken up and had a keyboard dumped in it's lap.

The Horse Whisperer – Crime and Punishment (but make it a light one)

Officially, Ferrari has never been in the habit of commenting on verdicts.

However, as you all know, the Horse Whisperer is a free spirit who sums up the mood of millions of fans, especially when certain incidents get him worked up.

Have you ever faced accusations in a tribunal? It’s never happened to the Whisperer thank goodness, but it can’t be pleasant. But today we learned, that even if one is guilty and in this case that is an indisputable and verified fact, there is always a way of muddling through as best one can. One only has to suggest to the judge what the penalty should be and even better, why not make it something light like a rap across the knuckles.

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.” 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, in an area where the weather can still be changeable even in the height of summer. And what if this whole incident had taken place after the young drier test, what would have been the penalty then? Would they have been forbidden from holding an end of year dinner?

In one sense then, it’s a bit like when a ghost goal is scored against you and isn’t disallowed and then your opponents are incorrectly awarded a penalty, which has no effect on the result, incidents which both the English and the Germans ought to remember well, don’t you think? It’s not something that can be remedied with a penalty in the next game…

The way things are going in Formula 1 at the moment is becoming boring: you make a mistake, you race with an illegal component, but then you are told to just change it for the next race and we’ve seen what we’ve seen…

All this reminds the Whisperer that if he ever finds himself running a Formula 1 team in the near future and that he gets off to a difficult start to the season, then all it needs is to organise a nice week of testing at the right moment and then maybe have to skip a later session, by which time, everything could be done and dusted. What do you reckon?

PS: Oh, and to those who jabber on about transparency and credibility, the Whisperer would remind them that the rules are very clear: you cannot test with a car from the current year. With those that are at least two years old, you can run when you like, where you like, with any driver you like, dressed how you like, inviting who you like.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the rest of the guff *cough... oversized bargeboards, team orders, traction control...* it's funny how almost everyone has taken that single rule to mean you can only run a car that is 2 year old or older.

At no point do the rules state that at all. Perhaps Ferrari should go take another look at the rule book.

22.1 states "undertaken by a competitor entered in the championship, using cars which conform substantially with the current F1 technical regulations, in addition to those from the previous or subsequent year"

So it's cars that 'conform substantially'... Can anyone out there define that?

33% conforming - is that considered substantial?
50.1%?

Over to the laywers again... ;)
 
Last edited:
Usual Horse Whisperer insanity aside, this was a half-decent point:

And 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?
Click to expand...
 
glad i'm not the only one who thought the horse whisperer was talking a load of rubbish, especially the part about the young driver test vs the Pirelli/Merc test. Mercedes had a test where no new components could be run; very few extra sensors could be used (presumably just those for tyre info) on a clear track where there was some bad weather (reportedly). The young drivers test allows for any new components to be used and whatever sensors the team desire, but the cars have to be run by less experienced drivers on a slightly busier track where there might be bad weather. i think that given the choice of those two, every single team would pick the latter, so the horse whisperer is technically correct that one test is more beneficial than the other, but he seems to have got which test is more beneficial mixed up
 
So are you saying that all of the normal sensors were turned off and there was no telemetry between the car and the pits? You do know that modern F1 cars cannot be run in that way...
 
leaskovski said:
Nope, but the existing components cab be reliability tested for 1000km of track time, plus Lewis can work on his braking technique.

Edit: post before last
Click to expand...


You do know it's the brake cylinders he is having a problem with not his style?

Now paddy has been there a week or two I'm hoping it's a bit better for the next race.
 
I had to lol at the Horse Whisperers rant about how it might rain in Silverstone, given that the Pirelli 1 day test lasted 3 days due to it peeing it down :D

chriscatt said:
You do know that modern F1 cars cannot be run in that way...
Click to expand...

Yes they can. Unless you know of a different meaning to uni-directional telemetry?
 
leaskovski said:
Does Nico suffer from the same issue? Honestly.... Is it really an issue with the car, or is it the driver?
Click to expand...

No, they both brake in the same way as well, just happens to be that Nico has mastered the brakes on the car whereas Lewis hasn't.

The braking system at Mclaren was a lot different and he's used to that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom