f1jcw wrote: ↑27 Nov 2023, 22:03
None of that says anything about Merc, let it go.
ValeVida46 wrote: ↑28 Nov 2023, 09:02
For a guy with over 1100 "points"... There's a spectacular bad failure at making assumptions and presenting them as facts.
What you have presented is not indicative of Mercedes or anyone else.
Sainz was speculating himself..."For Sure there WILL be..."
You've added 2 + 2 + 2 and got 10.
Are we seriously gonna pretend Toto didn't immediately aggressively downplay the incident? Is he on the Las Vegas promoter's (FOM, by the way) payroll? Or is there another agenda for him and his team?
That's the 4 you missed, VV46
Let's also examine all the layers of bs in their "explanation" to Kravitz.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/formula- ... s-31469228
But Croft's colleague Ted Kravitz said he had been flatly told by Mercedes that this is not true. "I've reached out to Mercedes [to ask] is it the case that you would have or could have objected to a Sainz derogation for that penalty?" he told viewers.
"They said, 'No, absolutely not, purely speculative. The precedent is that even when it's not the driver or team's fault, you carry the penalty and the rules don't allow for discretion to be applied', as the steward explained. Mercedes' point was that they would not have been in a position to object to any derogation.
"Their only position would have been if the rules had been incorrectly applied and some derogation or allowance would have been made for Sainz. Then, I think Mercedes would have objected to that and probably some other teams as well, because you can't have the rules being incorrectly applied, can you?"
1 and 2) There is no precedent of PU penalties in case of such incidents. 2019 Baku Russell damaged the floor and
not the PU. 2017 Malaysia Grosjean got chassis, suspension and bodywork damage,
not even gearbox, the team was allowed to break curfew to fix the car without any penalty -
so the only precedent would actually be to suspend any sporting penalties. 2016 Monaco, Rosberg got puncture and Button got heavy damage but
no PU damage.
3) They admit to oppose suspending the penalty and falsely state that rules don't allow that. As I already mentioned, rules do allow that at stewards discretion.
The FIA Code gives stewards the authority, under 11.9.3.g to ‘decide to suspend any penalty in accordance with Article 12.2.3’
So outright and blatant false narrative on 3 aspects.