6) lauda takes direct control of merc team
Lauda is non-exec - eg trouble maker/problem fixer, not someone to run the actual race team. Pat Fry is the man with the role closest to Ross Braun.
Can definitely agree with 5,7,8,10,11 above.
Might be a variation on 10, involving Kimi, and/or 1 championship contender name out of F1 by 2015 (as well as Webber + Massa).
If Brawn is out, I reckon he'd be out for good.
GL with 15.
Out for good, working out how to spend the £70m he got for [s]Honda[/s] Brawn....
I think that the most important fact is being missed. The FIA is now headed up by that nice Jean Todt chappie, formally of Ferrari. THerefore merc are guilty by Ferrar's test of the same tyres is not legal because the car was a bit older. Does the FIA really expect us to believe that a team cant work out the impact of the tyres on a 2 year old car would have on the current one.
Also, how come no one from the FIA noticed Merc, the day after the race, doing a few laps of the circuit?
[quote=chrismac ]I think that the most important fact is being missed. The FIA is now headed up by that nice Jean Todt chappie, formally of Ferrari. THerefore merc are guilty by Ferrar's test of the same tyres is not legal because the car was a bit older. Does the FIA really expect us to believe that a team cant work out the impact of the tyres on a 2 year old car would have on the current one.
(a) the regulations allow a one-year old car to be used and (b) Ferrari had their test/development driver in the car. If Mercedes hadn't reckoned their drivers would benefit from taking part in the test they'd have used a test/development driver too.
So no one is buying the tyres need testing and everyone else is un helpful or expects playing excuse from Ross Braun?
Well the decision is out...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/22999458
What's to stop the other teams doing 3 days of testing now, they might prefer that to doing the young drivers test later in the year?
I think if another team tried the same stunt sanctions would be tougher on the basis that the tribunal have obviously thought Merc and Pirelli were a bit naughty but that the rules were a bit unclear
The rules will now be tightened to prevent such a thing happening again.
I would imagine the other teams are going to be a tad disgruntled but that's life.
Cheers
Danny B
More proof that F1 is just a joke a cash generating joke for a few people but about as far removed from what proper motor racing is as you can get.
So basically this is the Tribunal saying 'the FIA weren't clear enough about what the teams could & couldn't do, the current regs need tightening up to stop this happening again BUT Merc were pushing it too far to do what they did, and Pirelli were complicit in the event'.
Still don't see how they can really reprimand Pirelli who don't have an FIA license and so the only jurisdiction would be French law over the Pirelli/FIA contract, but the rest of it seems to reflect the situation as well as can be.
No doubt many will say "it's not fair" but then what is?
ETA - and of course some will say that this shows F1 isn't a sport, because no other high level sports have their rules/rulings mucked about with do they...
Seems like that's about all they could do really - nobody has come out of this that well, including Red Bull and Ferrari (IMHO).
[i]The tribunal found in mitigation that:
•There was no intention by either Pirelli or Mercedes to gain "any unfair sporting advantage" [/i]
So why did they not use the test driver? I would have thought that they would normally want Hamilton and Rosberg to recover after a weekends hard racing? And why did they feel the need to make them use special unmarked helmets?
And why did they feel the need to make them use special unmarked helmets?
For safety due to a lack of bodyguards (was the excuse I read on the BBC)
So it [i]was[/i] Hamilton and Rosberg doing the tests? I was trying to find that out....
Also, what is the 'young driver test'? Does it affect the championship?
So basically this is the Tribunal saying 'the FIA weren't clear enough
The tribunal seems pretty clear that Mercedes broke the rules, if they are why shouldn't Mercedes be?
[i]The tribunal said that:
•Mercedes had broken article 22.4 of the sporting regulations by running an illegal in-season test with a current car
•The FIA's qualified approval did not and could not override article 22.4
•Mercedes "did obtain some material advantage" which "at least potentially gave it an unfair sporting advantage"[/i]
For safety due to a lack of bodyguards (was the excuse I read on the BBC)
I guess they must have kept them on all the time in the paddock, motorhome etc?
Do they wear unmarked helmets during pre season testing?
Quite a good solution IMO, counteracts the Mercedes advantage by missing the young drivers test and otherwise is just a slap on the wrist which should be lenient enough not to cause any drama from Pirelli and Mercedes.
Also, what is the 'young driver test'? Does it affect the championship?
It doesn't affect the championship. It's where young drivers, that are the future F1 stars apparently, get to test out in the cars with a view to securing a contract I think.
so, why did they not let all the other teams but mercedes use current drivers as well at the Young drivers test, then it would have been fair?
Not really as Mercedes weren't (apparently) aware of what tyres they were using, it's unlikely they were current season ones which they will be at the young driver's test. The testing was also (apparently) dictated by Pirelli so likely wasn't the same sort of testing Mercedes would have chosen to do if they had a choice. I think just missing out on the young driver's test hurts them as much as missing the Pirelli test hurts the other teams.
Ofc if Mercedes miraculously manage to fix their high tyre wear issue in the next race or two then that should raise alarm bells
it's unlikely they were current season ones
Weren't they testing the possible replacement tyres for this season (due to the delimination issues they've had at a couple of races with a certain compound) which has since been rejected as not all teams agree they can change the compounds mid-season.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22894591
