FIA and Mercedes

Forum rules
Please read the forum rules
pokerman
Posts: 37160
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: FIA and Mercedes

Post by pokerman »

A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:59 pm
pokerman wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:52 pm
A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:13 pm
pokerman wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:05 pm
A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:03 pm


Sure - but when they do dodgy things it is considered innovation (such as DAS, which never should have been allowed imo).

Here's a video I found of the wing from Spain: https://streamable.com/6xb9xv (mods: not sure if this is allowed - please feel free to remove if not)
How was DAS cheating when they ran it through the stewards before using it?
How are the wings illegal if they pass all the tests? Your logic (I'm being kind in using this word) is circular.
They passed the load tests so they were deemed legal, however it's not the first time such things have been designed to pass a load test only to run in an illegal manner on the track, as in visible flexing beyond what is considered normal.

The stewards will merely revisit how they test the wings, which might be as simple as sticking more load on, maybe loading it in different places.

They wouldn't do that unless they themselves were unhappy with what they were seeing out on track
I'm not arguing whether the flexi-wings are legal or not - I am wondering why the FIA acts like they are the Merc B-team at times. How did their stewards accept the argument that DAS is part of the steering system when it clearly was not used or required for steering the car? Seems like their interpretation of rules depends on who is breaking them.
Arguing whether DAS was actually legal or not is beyond my pay grade.
Lewis Hamilton #44

World Drivers Titles: 7 (1st)
Grand Prix Wins: 98 (1st)
Pole Positions: 100 (1st)
Podiums: 169 (1st)


PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2014: Champion

A.J.
Posts: 974
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am

Re: FIA and Mercedes

Post by A.J. »

pokerman wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 5:24 pm
A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:20 pm
pokerman wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:03 pm
A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 3:55 pm
pokerman wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 3:52 pm

The first you seem to be making up only Aston Martin came under investigation, the second they got penalised for, the person responsible for that Ross Brawn, ex Ferrari, left the team at the end of that year.
Merc didn't even come under investigation for this - the plot thickens!
Maybe because they had nothing to answer for, it's good we no longer have kangaroo courts.
But they did - and I'm not the only one who thinks that: https://www.news.com.au/sport/motorspor ... 679241664a

https://au.sports.yahoo.com/formula-one ... 19229.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formu ... Point.html (sorry for the Daily Fail link)
Yeah It's unfortunate you bring forward a source you previously would deem as being a joke and not proof of anything, a source I wouldn't be able to use.

Mercedes were quite happy to take anyone to court over the matter and like I say we no longer have kangaroo courts, there needs be a level of proof beyond allegations.

Going further than that if Mercedes were found guilty how exactly would what they did have helped the Mercedes team/car anyway?
There are two other links as well that are not from that source - but typical that you would focus on the one that I already pointed out as being from the Daily Fail.

How would they have helped Mercedes? Well the TP of Mercedes (and a shareholder) is a shareholder in RP/AM as well, and it is a clear conflict of interest and collusion case going on here. Just because someone doesn't deem it worthy of their time and effort to take them to court over this doesn't mean they are allegations without proof.

A.J.
Posts: 974
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am

Re: FIA and Mercedes

Post by A.J. »

F1Tyrant wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 5:28 pm
Mercedes political power was evident after the illegal 2013 tyre test where Hamilton and Rosberg pulled a Stig. They should have really been excluded from the WCC but Mercedes threatened to walk away and the FIA hadn't explicitly forbid the use of the W04.
Can you imagine the uproar from the "sporting" British press if this was Ferrari doing this instead?

pokerman
Posts: 37160
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: FIA and Mercedes

Post by pokerman »

A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 5:22 pm
j man wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 5:17 pm
I think there's a touch of confirmation bias going on here; I'm sure there are plenty of counter examples that could be cited. This year's aero reg changes for instance, that suited Red Bull's aero concept and hindered Mercedes.
But they were brought about at Pirelli's behest, and ALL the teams agreed to it. It wasn't a witch-hunt instigated on behalf of one team, like the other examples are.
The tyres being used in 2020 were getting beyond the limit of performance, these were also the 2019 tyres, the tyres used this year were rejected by the teams for 2020 and even for this year I believe, so they needed to change the cars. Then surprisingly the tyres that got rejected are being used anyway, these being more durable than the previous tyres, with these tyres the cars might not have even been needed to be changed in the first place.

That being said I'm far more happy with these tyres, they seem more raceable.
Lewis Hamilton #44

World Drivers Titles: 7 (1st)
Grand Prix Wins: 98 (1st)
Pole Positions: 100 (1st)
Podiums: 169 (1st)


PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2014: Champion

pokerman
Posts: 37160
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: FIA and Mercedes

Post by pokerman »

F1Tyrant wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 5:28 pm
Mercedes political power was evident after the illegal 2013 tyre test where Hamilton and Rosberg pulled a Stig. They should have really been excluded from the WCC but Mercedes threatened to walk away and the FIA hadn't explicitly forbid the use of the W04.
What's kind of crazy about that is that the tyres got changed soon after anyway.
Lewis Hamilton #44

World Drivers Titles: 7 (1st)
Grand Prix Wins: 98 (1st)
Pole Positions: 100 (1st)
Podiums: 169 (1st)


PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2014: Champion

pokerman
Posts: 37160
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: FIA and Mercedes

Post by pokerman »

A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 5:35 pm
pokerman wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 5:24 pm
A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:20 pm
pokerman wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:03 pm
A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 3:55 pm


Merc didn't even come under investigation for this - the plot thickens!
Maybe because they had nothing to answer for, it's good we no longer have kangaroo courts.
But they did - and I'm not the only one who thinks that: https://www.news.com.au/sport/motorspor ... 679241664a

https://au.sports.yahoo.com/formula-one ... 19229.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formu ... Point.html (sorry for the Daily Fail link)
Yeah It's unfortunate you bring forward a source you previously would deem as being a joke and not proof of anything, a source I wouldn't be able to use.

Mercedes were quite happy to take anyone to court over the matter and like I say we no longer have kangaroo courts, there needs be a level of proof beyond allegations.

Going further than that if Mercedes were found guilty how exactly would what they did have helped the Mercedes team/car anyway?
There are two other links as well that are not from that source - but typical that you would focus on the one that I already pointed out as being from the Daily Fail.

How would they have helped Mercedes? Well the TP of Mercedes (and a shareholder) is a shareholder in RP/AM as well, and it is a clear conflict of interest and collusion case going on here. Just because someone doesn't deem it worthy of their time and effort to take them to court over this doesn't mean they are allegations without proof.
That was one paragraph out of three, the Mail article also happened to contain far more content, probably why you included it.

There was proof but Red Bull just let Mercedes off?
Lewis Hamilton #44

World Drivers Titles: 7 (1st)
Grand Prix Wins: 98 (1st)
Pole Positions: 100 (1st)
Podiums: 169 (1st)


PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2014: Champion

A.J.
Posts: 974
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am

Re: FIA and Mercedes

Post by A.J. »

pokerman wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 6:19 pm
A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 5:35 pm
pokerman wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 5:24 pm
A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:20 pm
pokerman wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:03 pm

Maybe because they had nothing to answer for, it's good we no longer have kangaroo courts.
But they did - and I'm not the only one who thinks that: https://www.news.com.au/sport/motorspor ... 679241664a

https://au.sports.yahoo.com/formula-one ... 19229.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formu ... Point.html (sorry for the Daily Fail link)
Yeah It's unfortunate you bring forward a source you previously would deem as being a joke and not proof of anything, a source I wouldn't be able to use.

Mercedes were quite happy to take anyone to court over the matter and like I say we no longer have kangaroo courts, there needs be a level of proof beyond allegations.

Going further than that if Mercedes were found guilty how exactly would what they did have helped the Mercedes team/car anyway?
There are two other links as well that are not from that source - but typical that you would focus on the one that I already pointed out as being from the Daily Fail.

How would they have helped Mercedes? Well the TP of Mercedes (and a shareholder) is a shareholder in RP/AM as well, and it is a clear conflict of interest and collusion case going on here. Just because someone doesn't deem it worthy of their time and effort to take them to court over this doesn't mean they are allegations without proof.
That was one paragraph out of three, the Mail article also happened to contain far more content, probably why you included it.

There was proof but Red Bull just let Mercedes off?
At first glance there is enough proof to suggest collusion - why the teams (don't know where you got RBR from) decided to drop it is something only they know, but if I were to speculate they would have weighed the risk/benefits ratio and decided it wasn't worth the time and effort involved.

Are you suggesting there is nothing shady about Wolff being a Mercedes F1 and Aston Martin shareholder (and his well-documented closeness with Lawrence Stroll), and AM/RP suddenly designing a clone of the Merc car? How does one design a replica car without having blueprints of the parts? Copying the outside is the easy part, copying the inside is impossible without help - and yet both escaped without sanctions and with a mere slap on the wrist.

Imagine McLaren under Mosley doing something similar - last I remember they were fined 100 mn quid for stealing someone's IP (in this case there is collusion, conflict of interest, as well as a clear case of cheating).

User avatar
Lojik
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: FIA and Mercedes

Post by Lojik »

Nonsense thread

User avatar
Alienturnedhuman
Posts: 4245
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm

Re: FIA and Mercedes

Post by Alienturnedhuman »

A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:43 pm
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:33 pm
A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:13 pm
pokerman wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:05 pm
A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:03 pm


Sure - but when they do dodgy things it is considered innovation (such as DAS, which never should have been allowed imo).

Here's a video I found of the wing from Spain: https://streamable.com/6xb9xv (mods: not sure if this is allowed - please feel free to remove if not)
How was DAS cheating when they ran it through the stewards before using it?
How are the wings illegal if they pass all the tests? Your logic (I'm being kind in using this word) is circular.
DAS was not illegal because it conformed to the rules. It's not allowed this year because the rules were updated to prohibit it.

And someone with your eye for the details should appreciate that the rules are not defined by the tests put in place to check compliance with them. The wings pass the flex tests, but the flex tests are not the rules. Passing the flex test does not make a wing 'legal', but failing it makes it legal.
I assume you meant "illegal"?

DAS conformed to the interpretation of the rules from the FIA (which imo favoured Merc) - there is a clear counter-argument against it, and as always a lot of things are left to speculation when it comes to the FIA. Suspension response can only be through load and not through driver input, as stated here: https://the-race.com/formula-1/is-das-l ... arguments/

In the end it boils down to whether the car (a) conforms to the rules as they are written, and (b) passes tests in place to check conformity. The poster argued DAS cannot be illegal because they ran it through the stewards - that unfortunately is not the gold standard when it comes to legality. The RP car was clearly illegal, and yet somehow both they and Merc escaped without any real sanctions.
I never said that the stewards giving it the all clear made it legal - what made it legal was the fact it was clear what it did - there was no cloak and dagger going on. Everyone knew exactly what it was doing, how it was doing it and any team could have recreated it if they wanted to. There was no ambiguity or unknowns, no one was in the dark. If it was illegal, or Red Bull thought they had a chance of convincing a court it was illegal, it would have ended up in court. The fact Red Bull did not pursue it is proof it was fine.

As for the suspension argument - simply turning the steering wheel on a non DAS car also alters the suspension geometry. The moving of the steering wheel has been accepted as doing this as long as cars have had suspension and steering wheels, and that's why Mercedes went for the method they used. Moving the steering wheel moves the orientation of the wheels - they merely expanded the ways in which that wheel could be moved.

The flexible wings are another matter, the fact is that Red Bull have invested a great deal of effort to make a wing bend in such a way it doesn't during the scrutineering, but does under race conditions. Now, their famous front wings from the Vettel era actually broke a different rule beyond the moveable aero parts - there is a line in the regs that states 'any device that is designed to close the gap between the sprung mass of the car and the ground is prohibited' --- given it was more difficult to design a wing that behaved the way the Red Bull wing worked than one that obeyed the rules, this was clearly being designed to work this way and thus was designed to close the gap. However, unlike a transgression for being underweight, or using too much fuel, it's still impossible to 'prove' with an objective measure, and while everyone in the room knows it was intentional Red Bull can always claim they just aren't very good at making their wings strong enough.

The rear wing though only breaks the moveable aero rules. Here the argument is less forceful, as the only angle of attack is about proving it illegal by having it fail deflection tests. Red Bull have designed their wing to pass the current deflection tests, yet move veryy easily under aero dynamic load. It's very clever engineering, but it's engineering to subvert a test, intentionally designed that way. That is what makes it different to DAS. It's clear what DAS is, what it does and anyone could make one. It was not designed to subvert a test.

However, to be clear - the flexible body is worlds apart from what Ferrari did with their engine. They tricked the sensors, that would be the equivalent of Red Bull relabelling the inches on the tape measure to millimetres just before the deflection was measured.

A.J.
Posts: 974
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am

Re: FIA and Mercedes

Post by A.J. »

Lojik wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 6:30 pm
Nonsense thread
Nonsense comment

mikeyg123
Posts: 19033
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: FIA and Mercedes

Post by mikeyg123 »

The FIA/FOM has allowed a situation to develop where any Big team that is also an Engine manufacturer enjoys enormous political power.

I don't think there is anything going on beyond that.

There is a hell of a lot of reaching and confirmation bias going on here.

Paolo_Lasardi
Posts: 2980
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm

Re: FIA and Mercedes

Post by Paolo_Lasardi »

mikeyg123 wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 8:47 pm
The FIA/FOM has allowed a situation to develop where any Big team that is also an Engine manufacturer enjoys enormous political power.

I don't think there is anything going on beyond that.

There is a hell of a lot of reaching and confirmation bias going on here.
:thumbup:

WHoff78
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm

Re: FIA and Mercedes

Post by WHoff78 »

There is one very depressing pattern that is emerging. The other top teams don't seem to be capable of challenging Mercedes without breaking rules if this one sets back Red Bull and the other high rake cars. Hopefully not the case, and we can continue to see them challenge. A separate discussion but for me it is clear that the drivers are making the difference up front so far this year.

Hopefully this changes next year and the competition raises its game a bit further.

Dazza1976
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:39 pm

Re: FIA and Mercedes

Post by Dazza1976 »

]
I never said that the stewards giving it the all clear made it legal - what made it legal was the fact it was clear what it did - there was no cloak and dagger going on. Everyone knew exactly what it was doing, how it was doing it and any team could have recreated it if they wanted to. There was no ambiguity or unknowns, no one was in the dark. If it was illegal, or Red Bull thought they had a chance of convincing a court it was illegal, it would have ended up in court. The fact Red Bull did not pursue it is proof it was fine.

As for the suspension argument - simply turning the steering wheel on a non DAS car also alters the suspension geometry. The moving of the steering wheel has been accepted as doing this as long as cars have had suspension and steering wheels, and that's why Mercedes went for the method they used. Moving the steering wheel moves the orientation of the wheels - they merely expanded the ways in which that wheel could be moved.

The flexible wings are another matter, the fact is that Red Bull have invested a great deal of effort to make a wing bend in such a way it doesn't during the scrutineering, but does under race conditions. Now, their famous front wings from the Vettel era actually broke a different rule beyond the moveable aero parts - there is a line in the regs that states 'any device that is designed to close the gap between the sprung mass of the car and the ground is prohibited' --- given it was more difficult to design a wing that behaved the way the Red Bull wing worked than one that obeyed the rules, this was clearly being designed to work this way and thus was designed to close the gap. However, unlike a transgression for being underweight, or using too much fuel, it's still impossible to 'prove' with an objective measure, and while everyone in the room knows it was intentional Red Bull can always claim they just aren't very good at making their wings strong enough.

The rear wing though only breaks the moveable aero rules. Here the argument is less forceful, as the only angle of attack is about proving it illegal by having it fail deflection tests. Red Bull have designed their wing to pass the current deflection tests, yet move veryy easily under aero dynamic load. It's very clever engineering, but it's engineering to subvert a test, intentionally designed that way. That is what makes it different to DAS. It's clear what DAS is, what it does and anyone could make one. It was not designed to subvert a test.

However, to be clear - the flexible body is worlds apart from what Ferrari did with their engine. They tricked the sensors, that would be the equivalent of Red Bull relabelling the inches on the tape measure to millimetres just before the deflection was measured.

[/quote]

Everything you’ve said makes sense and is factual, unlike the OP.

Re Merc political power it is significant as is Ferrari and RedBull. FIA in this instance are right to investigate RedBull, the wing seems to break the rules clearly under race conditions but not in the test. It’s very clever but seems illegal. Very simple actually, surprised OP is banging on about it.

Clarky
Posts: 4638
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 4:09 pm
Location: LONDON...!

Re: FIA and Mercedes

Post by Clarky »

Asphalt_World wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:11 pm
UnlikeUday wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:09 pm
Last year when DAS was discovered & banned from this year, FIA did allow Mercedes to keep using DAS for the rest of the '20 season as a freepass.
They left it because the regs basically didn't seem able to find it illegal It was something that they simply couldn't overrule with the current regs. So, in order to not start a mass spending spree on DAS system, they banned it for this year with new regs. Simple.
This but to add Mercedes run it by the FIA before the pre-season testing and got approval.

pokerman
Posts: 37160
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: FIA and Mercedes

Post by pokerman »

A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 6:29 pm
pokerman wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 6:19 pm
A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 5:35 pm
pokerman wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 5:24 pm
A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:20 pm


But they did - and I'm not the only one who thinks that: https://www.news.com.au/sport/motorspor ... 679241664a

https://au.sports.yahoo.com/formula-one ... 19229.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formu ... Point.html (sorry for the Daily Fail link)
Yeah It's unfortunate you bring forward a source you previously would deem as being a joke and not proof of anything, a source I wouldn't be able to use.

Mercedes were quite happy to take anyone to court over the matter and like I say we no longer have kangaroo courts, there needs be a level of proof beyond allegations.

Going further than that if Mercedes were found guilty how exactly would what they did have helped the Mercedes team/car anyway?
There are two other links as well that are not from that source - but typical that you would focus on the one that I already pointed out as being from the Daily Fail.

How would they have helped Mercedes? Well the TP of Mercedes (and a shareholder) is a shareholder in RP/AM as well, and it is a clear conflict of interest and collusion case going on here. Just because someone doesn't deem it worthy of their time and effort to take them to court over this doesn't mean they are allegations without proof.
That was one paragraph out of three, the Mail article also happened to contain far more content, probably why you included it.

There was proof but Red Bull just let Mercedes off?
At first glance there is enough proof to suggest collusion - why the teams (don't know where you got RBR from) decided to drop it is something only they know, but if I were to speculate they would have weighed the risk/benefits ratio and decided it wasn't worth the time and effort involved.

Are you suggesting there is nothing shady about Wolff being a Mercedes F1 and Aston Martin shareholder (and his well-documented closeness with Lawrence Stroll), and AM/RP suddenly designing a clone of the Merc car? How does one design a replica car without having blueprints of the parts? Copying the outside is the easy part, copying the inside is impossible without help - and yet both escaped without sanctions and with a mere slap on the wrist.

Imagine McLaren under Mosley doing something similar - last I remember they were fined 100 mn quid for stealing someone's IP (in this case there is collusion, conflict of interest, as well as a clear case of cheating).
If Mercedes have so much power why couldn't they stop the banning of the engine qualifying modes last year which was aimed solely at them, why was Hamilton penalised so many times last year and the year before post Canada while Ferrari, in particular Leclerc, seemed immune from penalty for similar incidents.

We've also had the banning of Mercedes developed systems like FRIC and DAS, maybe also some others that I can't think of at this moment in time, this is what can happen when you only look at something with one eye.
Lewis Hamilton #44

World Drivers Titles: 7 (1st)
Grand Prix Wins: 98 (1st)
Pole Positions: 100 (1st)
Podiums: 169 (1st)


PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2014: Champion

mikeyg123
Posts: 19033
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: FIA and Mercedes

Post by mikeyg123 »

A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 6:29 pm
pokerman wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 6:19 pm
A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 5:35 pm
pokerman wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 5:24 pm
A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:20 pm


But they did - and I'm not the only one who thinks that: https://www.news.com.au/sport/motorspor ... 679241664a

https://au.sports.yahoo.com/formula-one ... 19229.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formu ... Point.html (sorry for the Daily Fail link)
Yeah It's unfortunate you bring forward a source you previously would deem as being a joke and not proof of anything, a source I wouldn't be able to use.

Mercedes were quite happy to take anyone to court over the matter and like I say we no longer have kangaroo courts, there needs be a level of proof beyond allegations.

Going further than that if Mercedes were found guilty how exactly would what they did have helped the Mercedes team/car anyway?
There are two other links as well that are not from that source - but typical that you would focus on the one that I already pointed out as being from the Daily Fail.

How would they have helped Mercedes? Well the TP of Mercedes (and a shareholder) is a shareholder in RP/AM as well, and it is a clear conflict of interest and collusion case going on here. Just because someone doesn't deem it worthy of their time and effort to take them to court over this doesn't mean they are allegations without proof.
That was one paragraph out of three, the Mail article also happened to contain far more content, probably why you included it.

There was proof but Red Bull just let Mercedes off?
At first glance there is enough proof to suggest collusion - why the teams (don't know where you got RBR from) decided to drop it is something only they know, but if I were to speculate they would have weighed the risk/benefits ratio and decided it wasn't worth the time and effort involved.

Are you suggesting there is nothing shady about Wolff being a Mercedes F1 and Aston Martin shareholder (and his well-documented closeness with Lawrence Stroll), and AM/RP suddenly designing a clone of the Merc car? How does one design a replica car without having blueprints of the parts? Copying the outside is the easy part, copying the inside is impossible without help - and yet both escaped without sanctions and with a mere slap on the wrist.

Imagine McLaren under Mosley doing something similar - last I remember they were fined 100 mn quid for stealing someone's IP (in this case there is collusion, conflict of interest, as well as a clear case of cheating).
In terms of copying the parts, do you actually know what Aston Martin were found guilty of?

Because if you do then I don't see how you can possibly think Mercedes are somehow also guilty.

A.J.
Posts: 974
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am

Re: FIA and Mercedes

Post by A.J. »

mikeyg123 wrote:
Thu May 13, 2021 12:42 pm
A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 6:29 pm
pokerman wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 6:19 pm
A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 5:35 pm
pokerman wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 5:24 pm

Yeah It's unfortunate you bring forward a source you previously would deem as being a joke and not proof of anything, a source I wouldn't be able to use.

Mercedes were quite happy to take anyone to court over the matter and like I say we no longer have kangaroo courts, there needs be a level of proof beyond allegations.

Going further than that if Mercedes were found guilty how exactly would what they did have helped the Mercedes team/car anyway?
There are two other links as well that are not from that source - but typical that you would focus on the one that I already pointed out as being from the Daily Fail.

How would they have helped Mercedes? Well the TP of Mercedes (and a shareholder) is a shareholder in RP/AM as well, and it is a clear conflict of interest and collusion case going on here. Just because someone doesn't deem it worthy of their time and effort to take them to court over this doesn't mean they are allegations without proof.
That was one paragraph out of three, the Mail article also happened to contain far more content, probably why you included it.

There was proof but Red Bull just let Mercedes off?
At first glance there is enough proof to suggest collusion - why the teams (don't know where you got RBR from) decided to drop it is something only they know, but if I were to speculate they would have weighed the risk/benefits ratio and decided it wasn't worth the time and effort involved.

Are you suggesting there is nothing shady about Wolff being a Mercedes F1 and Aston Martin shareholder (and his well-documented closeness with Lawrence Stroll), and AM/RP suddenly designing a clone of the Merc car? How does one design a replica car without having blueprints of the parts? Copying the outside is the easy part, copying the inside is impossible without help - and yet both escaped without sanctions and with a mere slap on the wrist.

Imagine McLaren under Mosley doing something similar - last I remember they were fined 100 mn quid for stealing someone's IP (in this case there is collusion, conflict of interest, as well as a clear case of cheating).
In terms of copying the parts, do you actually know what Aston Martin were found guilty of?

Because if you do then I don't see how you can possibly think Mercedes are somehow also guilty.
I have already provided quite a few links where it is clear I am not the only one who thinks Mercedes are involved in this (and deeply) - the only reason they got away is due to their outsized political influence on the sport.

mikeyg123
Posts: 19033
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: FIA and Mercedes

Post by mikeyg123 »

A.J. wrote:
Fri May 14, 2021 8:03 am
mikeyg123 wrote:
Thu May 13, 2021 12:42 pm
A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 6:29 pm
pokerman wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 6:19 pm
A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 5:35 pm


There are two other links as well that are not from that source - but typical that you would focus on the one that I already pointed out as being from the Daily Fail.

How would they have helped Mercedes? Well the TP of Mercedes (and a shareholder) is a shareholder in RP/AM as well, and it is a clear conflict of interest and collusion case going on here. Just because someone doesn't deem it worthy of their time and effort to take them to court over this doesn't mean they are allegations without proof.
That was one paragraph out of three, the Mail article also happened to contain far more content, probably why you included it.

There was proof but Red Bull just let Mercedes off?
At first glance there is enough proof to suggest collusion - why the teams (don't know where you got RBR from) decided to drop it is something only they know, but if I were to speculate they would have weighed the risk/benefits ratio and decided it wasn't worth the time and effort involved.

Are you suggesting there is nothing shady about Wolff being a Mercedes F1 and Aston Martin shareholder (and his well-documented closeness with Lawrence Stroll), and AM/RP suddenly designing a clone of the Merc car? How does one design a replica car without having blueprints of the parts? Copying the outside is the easy part, copying the inside is impossible without help - and yet both escaped without sanctions and with a mere slap on the wrist.

Imagine McLaren under Mosley doing something similar - last I remember they were fined 100 mn quid for stealing someone's IP (in this case there is collusion, conflict of interest, as well as a clear case of cheating).
In terms of copying the parts, do you actually know what Aston Martin were found guilty of?

Because if you do then I don't see how you can possibly think Mercedes are somehow also guilty.
I have already provided quite a few links where it is clear I am not the only one who thinks Mercedes are involved in this (and deeply) - the only reason they got away is due to their outsized political influence on the sport.
They haven't got away with anything. They've not been tried for anything. The only thing Aston were tried and found guilty for is something Mercedes is quite clearly in the clear for.

A.J.
Posts: 974
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am

Re: FIA and Mercedes

Post by A.J. »

mikeyg123 wrote:
Fri May 14, 2021 9:56 am
A.J. wrote:
Fri May 14, 2021 8:03 am
mikeyg123 wrote:
Thu May 13, 2021 12:42 pm
A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 6:29 pm
pokerman wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 6:19 pm

That was one paragraph out of three, the Mail article also happened to contain far more content, probably why you included it.

There was proof but Red Bull just let Mercedes off?
At first glance there is enough proof to suggest collusion - why the teams (don't know where you got RBR from) decided to drop it is something only they know, but if I were to speculate they would have weighed the risk/benefits ratio and decided it wasn't worth the time and effort involved.

Are you suggesting there is nothing shady about Wolff being a Mercedes F1 and Aston Martin shareholder (and his well-documented closeness with Lawrence Stroll), and AM/RP suddenly designing a clone of the Merc car? How does one design a replica car without having blueprints of the parts? Copying the outside is the easy part, copying the inside is impossible without help - and yet both escaped without sanctions and with a mere slap on the wrist.

Imagine McLaren under Mosley doing something similar - last I remember they were fined 100 mn quid for stealing someone's IP (in this case there is collusion, conflict of interest, as well as a clear case of cheating).
In terms of copying the parts, do you actually know what Aston Martin were found guilty of?

Because if you do then I don't see how you can possibly think Mercedes are somehow also guilty.
I have already provided quite a few links where it is clear I am not the only one who thinks Mercedes are involved in this (and deeply) - the only reason they got away is due to their outsized political influence on the sport.
They haven't got away with anything. They've not been tried for anything. The only thing Aston were tried and found guilty for is something Mercedes is quite clearly in the clear for.
And you think that happened in a vacuum? Merc had nothing to do with RP having their blueprints or indeed the brake assembly in Jan 2020?

mikeyg123
Posts: 19033
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: FIA and Mercedes

Post by mikeyg123 »

A.J. wrote:
Fri May 14, 2021 10:16 am
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fri May 14, 2021 9:56 am
A.J. wrote:
Fri May 14, 2021 8:03 am
mikeyg123 wrote:
Thu May 13, 2021 12:42 pm
A.J. wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 6:29 pm


At first glance there is enough proof to suggest collusion - why the teams (don't know where you got RBR from) decided to drop it is something only they know, but if I were to speculate they would have weighed the risk/benefits ratio and decided it wasn't worth the time and effort involved.

Are you suggesting there is nothing shady about Wolff being a Mercedes F1 and Aston Martin shareholder (and his well-documented closeness with Lawrence Stroll), and AM/RP suddenly designing a clone of the Merc car? How does one design a replica car without having blueprints of the parts? Copying the outside is the easy part, copying the inside is impossible without help - and yet both escaped without sanctions and with a mere slap on the wrist.

Imagine McLaren under Mosley doing something similar - last I remember they were fined 100 mn quid for stealing someone's IP (in this case there is collusion, conflict of interest, as well as a clear case of cheating).
In terms of copying the parts, do you actually know what Aston Martin were found guilty of?

Because if you do then I don't see how you can possibly think Mercedes are somehow also guilty.
I have already provided quite a few links where it is clear I am not the only one who thinks Mercedes are involved in this (and deeply) - the only reason they got away is due to their outsized political influence on the sport.
They haven't got away with anything. They've not been tried for anything. The only thing Aston were tried and found guilty for is something Mercedes is quite clearly in the clear for.
And you think that happened in a vacuum? Merc had nothing to do with RP having their blueprints or indeed the brake assembly in Jan 2020?
I assume Merc gave them to them in 2019 when it was perfectly legal to do so?

A.J.
Posts: 974
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am

Re: FIA and Mercedes

Post by A.J. »

mikeyg123 wrote:
Fri May 14, 2021 10:19 am
A.J. wrote:
Fri May 14, 2021 10:16 am
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fri May 14, 2021 9:56 am
A.J. wrote:
Fri May 14, 2021 8:03 am
mikeyg123 wrote:
Thu May 13, 2021 12:42 pm


In terms of copying the parts, do you actually know what Aston Martin were found guilty of?

Because if you do then I don't see how you can possibly think Mercedes are somehow also guilty.
I have already provided quite a few links where it is clear I am not the only one who thinks Mercedes are involved in this (and deeply) - the only reason they got away is due to their outsized political influence on the sport.
They haven't got away with anything. They've not been tried for anything. The only thing Aston were tried and found guilty for is something Mercedes is quite clearly in the clear for.
And you think that happened in a vacuum? Merc had nothing to do with RP having their blueprints or indeed the brake assembly in Jan 2020?
I assume Merc gave them to them in 2019 when it was perfectly legal to do so?
Was given to them on Jan 6, 2020.

User avatar
PF1 Mod Team
Site Admin
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2021 5:34 pm

Re: FIA and Mercedes

Post by PF1 Mod Team »

This thread has been locked for many reasons, but the discussion of the Red Bull bendy wing has been split into its own thread as that is an ongoing event.

Locked